It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
They really do live in the past, even more than we do, don't they ? And considering how Russia has treated the Cossacks over the centuries...
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Yep.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
Ultimately the Russian position in Crimea is untenable, because Ukraine can cut Russian supply routes.
Fortifications aren't much help if you can't supply the people in those fortifications.
So here's one prediction. The last piece of Ukrainian territory to be liberated will not be Crimea, but will be those parts of Donetsk or Luhansk Oblasts that border Russia. Somewhere like Sorokyne.
The less occupied Ukraine there remains, the greater the impact of Ukrainian HIMARS and other artillery systems on that occupied area. Sorokyne would look like Mariupol in hours.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I’m multitasking. On the question of AI, this tweet has caused a modest twitkerfuffle today. The consensus is that it is nonsense but still worrying
I suspect this one is nonsense - reads like Eric Feigl Ding has turned his attention to AI - but ChatGPT has convinced me that the computers replacing humans scenario is credible.
My daughter asked me a couple of days ago “if humans are still here in a million years what will we be like?” To which there is no feasible answer other than something straight out of science fiction. Indeed if humans are still here in a thousand years (or 200?) the same is true.
Yep, it’s not even a debate any more. Computers are gonna replace us. The only caveat is ‘unless we kill ourselves or the planet beforehand’
We must hope that Elon’s neuralink allows us to partner with the machines, as the alternative is worse
They won't imo. Sort of things that go on in a person's head are unprogrammable - even by that person.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Yep.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
Ultimately the Russian position in Crimea is untenable, because Ukraine can cut Russian supply routes.
Fortifications aren't much help if you can't supply the people in those fortifications.
So here's one prediction. The last piece of Ukrainian territory to be liberated will not be Crimea, but will be those parts of Donetsk or Luhansk Oblasts that border Russia. Somewhere like Sorokyne.
Spot on: if the Kerch bridge is down, and the Ukrainians have broken through to the coast around Mariupol, then resupplying Crimea (or indeed any of Russia's troops in the West) will be extremely difficult.
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
Have you seen the 2013 Russian Stalingrad film? Aside from a sickly start with modern day Russians nobly helping out after Tsushima I really liked it, a mad, overwrought, martial arts, spaghetti western vibe to it. Much preferred it to Enemy at the Gates, but that may be for reasons of Jude Law yet again loving himself.
Saw a recent Law film on tv the other day - his hair seems to have come back.
Somewhat off topic, quite interesting developments in further use of cameras to enforce rights and report offences.
A man with an assistance dog and a camera caught a taxi driver driving way from the appointment when he saw the dog. Reason presumably is a Muslim driver with traditional Islamic attitudes to dogs (which is the same reason you can't take Fido to Saudi Arabia, with an exception for assistance dogs which count as working dogs).
TFL also have a policy that such an offence results in loss of license.
This is the 12th he has successfully reported in 3 years.
I don't think these methods of crime reporting are going away.
I can't find the numbers for mobile phone driving, and there has been some interesting reporting from Edinburgh the last day or two around roadworks diversions not being obeyed, and people in motor vehicles hooning across a pedestrian crossing on green for pedestrians.
Found the stats for NIPs (Notices of Intended Prosecution) issued this year in London as a result of camera footage submitted by a third party - 11k Jan 1st to October 31st, with the total expected to be towards 20k.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
Much more reassuring is that we haven’t had a WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! from the resident PB conflagration-o-meter for a while.
Yes, I'd noticed this. It's a good litmus. Silence is indeed golden on this one.
I've just realised that on the Leonadamus principle this may not be a good thing. Shit!
Is ze fatal flaw! But let's not dwell on that given this is a planetary Life & Death matter.
On the Joe-Volo show, what do the 'I'm no fan of Trump but' guys think would be the current situation if DTR had prevailed in 2020? Would an independent Ukraine exist in any form?
Not much of it, I think.
Ukraine would be fighting an insurgency against the Russian occupiers of most of the country. It's possible the Poles would have moved into some of the territory in the west to create a friendly buffer zone.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I’m multitasking. On the question of AI, this tweet has caused a modest twitkerfuffle today. The consensus is that it is nonsense but still worrying
I suspect this one is nonsense - reads like Eric Feigl Ding has turned his attention to AI - but ChatGPT has convinced me that the computers replacing humans scenario is credible.
My daughter asked me a couple of days ago “if humans are still here in a million years what will we be like?” To which there is no feasible answer other than something straight out of science fiction. Indeed if humans are still here in a thousand years (or 200?) the same is true.
Yep, it’s not even a debate any more. Computers are gonna replace us. The only caveat is ‘unless we kill ourselves or the planet beforehand’
We must hope that Elon’s neuralink allows us to partner with the machines, as the alternative is worse
They won't imo. Sort of things that go on in a person's head are unprogrammable - even by that person.
Who knows. No one really has any idea of what might be possible in a decade or so. Or indeed how consciousness emerges. But what we already know is that machines already do an approximation of thinking which is many orders of magnitude faster than us.
I love my ghost. Step out of the office to make a brew. Lights are on. Come back 5 minutes later. Lights are off. I'm the only person in the building. Switch has been thrown to turn them off. Not by me.
Most likely explanation is that you switched the lights off without thinking when you left, but don't remember doing so.
This sort of thing happens to me a lot with things like locking the car/house, etc, all things that you do so often you no longer think about them as you do them
I really didn't. As the ghost likes to turn the lights off I leave and think - and sometimes say out loud - "I'm leaving the lights on". Unlikely that having done so I then turned them off and forgot.
Besides which, I and various other people have seen this particular ghosts. And there's various other poltergeist activity. Not just the lights.
You’ve actually seen the ghost?! That’s incredibly rare in hauntings; ie whether you believe in ghosts or not, hauntings follow a pattern and actually ‘seeing’ a ghost is quite unusual
If I may ask: what did you and others see?
I've talked about this before. We have at least three ghosts that I know of: "Jim" - various people have seen in mirrors, in the corner of the eye and even at one point stepping behind my wife whilst she was on a Zoom call. I saw him last year, about 15 metres away step from one doorway (my son's bedroom) into our laundry room. Thought it was my son - white shirt, black trousers, I shouted "oi" as I was working a power trip and the fusebox is in the laundry room. Get in there and nobody there. My son still in his room and I'd forgotten it was a non-uniform day. "Misty" - a black cat shape which we'd confused with our own black cat until we realised he was howling at this shape. Has been seen multiple times including broad daylight "Jane" - as in doe. A little girl of perhaps 6, only ever heard and thats only occasionally. Scottish accent calling for her mummy. And no, it isn't our 11-year old daughter playing a prank - unless she can throw her voice from school.
Jim the ghost we believe to be James Shives who was a bank employee who died here in the 1890s. Would fit the clothes seen and the link to the building.
That’s absolutely fascinating. A proper haunting! Thank you for the fine details
One of my multiple current obsessions is ghosts. Hauntings are way too common - worldwide - to be breezily dismissed. I am far from convinced that unquiet spirits return to scare us, yet people are experiencing *something*. What is it?
I’m multitasking. On the question of AI, this tweet has caused a modest twitkerfuffle today. The consensus is that it is nonsense but still worrying
I suspect this one is nonsense - reads like Eric Feigl Ding has turned his attention to AI - but ChatGPT has convinced me that the computers replacing humans scenario is credible.
My daughter asked me a couple of days ago “if humans are still here in a million years what will we be like?” To which there is no feasible answer other than something straight out of science fiction. Indeed if humans are still here in a thousand years (or 200?) the same is true.
Yep, it’s not even a debate any more. Computers are gonna replace us. The only caveat is ‘unless we kill ourselves or the planet beforehand’
We must hope that Elon’s neuralink allows us to partner with the machines, as the alternative is worse
They won't imo. Sort of things that go on in a person's head are unprogrammable - even by that person.
Who knows. No one really has any idea of what might be possible in a decade or so. Or indeed how consciousness emerges.
No, I don't know. No way do I have a clue. But this is my primitive instinct about it. We'll carry on until we don't but the extinction event won't be a great machine replacement.
Publix heiress Julie Fancelli invoked not just the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer J6 committee's questions, but also the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One thing I took from the Joe and Zel show yesterday - perhaps wrongly but I did - is the US doesn't fear Putin going nuclear. That risk has been assessed as low to negligible - assessed correctly imo fwiw.
Much more reassuring is that we haven’t had a WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! from the resident PB conflagration-o-meter for a while.
Yes, I'd noticed this. It's a good litmus. Silence is indeed golden on this one.
I've just realised that on the Leonadamus principle this may not be a good thing. Shit!
Is ze fatal flaw! But let's not dwell on that given this is a planetary Life & Death matter.
Maybe Parliament should pass a law preventing his commenting on anything ever again ?
It also relates to what Dura_Ace has observed about many people in Russia actually getting off on the idea of all those Russian deaths in the war.
"Nobody can die like we can." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
also
"Put your faith in your sword then put your sword in a Pole." Taras Bulba by N.V. Gogol
E2A. Putin recently funded a lavish cinematic production of TB specifically to foment a version of Ukrainian patriotism that rejects Western Catholicism. Particularly as delivered at the point of a sabre by a Polish Winged Hussar. Thinly veiled symbolism for NATO. It's very good. Better than the Yul Brynner/Tony Curtis version from the 60s.
Have you seen the 2013 Russian Stalingrad film? Aside from a sickly start with modern day Russians nobly helping out after Tsushima I really liked it, a mad, overwrought, martial arts, spaghetti western vibe to it. Much preferred it to Enemy at the Gates, but that may be for reasons of Jude Law yet again loving himself.
For some reason the execution scene popped up on my youtube as a recommended video a while back. Probably as I had been watching some videos about trials after world war 2.
I watched it, as it was from a film, and it was incredibly well done but very harrowing. For some reason it has stayed with me,
The woman being burned alive? Yep, it was grim.
On checking I see the score was by the recently deceased Angelo Badalamenti.
On the Joe-Volo show, what do the 'I'm no fan of Trump but' guys think would be the current situation if DTR had prevailed in 2020? Would an independent Ukraine exist in any form?
Not much of it, I think.
Ukraine would be fighting an insurgency against the Russian occupiers of most of the country. It's possible the Poles would have moved into some of the territory in the west to create a friendly buffer zone.
Would the invasion have happened at all?
The Biden-Putin summit in 2021 was one of the critical junctures that convinced Putin he would be able to handle the fallout from invading Ukraine.
Publix heiress Julie Fancelli invoked not just the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer J6 committee's questions, but also the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments.
Biden explains why Ukraine not given weapons to swiftly defeat Russia https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/12/22/biden-explains-why-ukraine-not-given-weapons-to-swiftly-defeat-russia/ ...“Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give? For two reasons,” he said. “One: There is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with Ukraine, and the idea that we would give Ukraine material that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and the European Union and the rest of the world.”
Mr. Biden continued: “We’re going to give Ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed, and to succeed on the battlefield.” ...
But there is definitely kit that has not been supplied, which would not have crossed these red lines, and might have had a very large impact on the battlefield.
I'm of the opinion that more and earlier military aid which could shorten the war would be a sensible policy. Just enough aid for Ukraine to hold out risks prolonging the conflict indefinitely, and will be more costly in the long run.
One objective difficulty is that although we are indirectly at war we have not specified what our war aims are. Enabling Ukraine to hold out? Enabling them to push Russia back to the 2014 boundary? Enabling Ukraine to take the whole territory that they claim? Defeating Russia so decisively as to force regime change?
Worse, I'm not sure that we have collectively even privately agreed on the objective. Without knowing what we want to achieve, discussing how to achieve it is always going to be difficult. Virtually everyone supports enabling them to hold out, and virtually nobody supports actually fighting the war including strikes on undisputed Russian territory until Russian regime change is achieved. Between that...?
Merely giving Ukraine more and more weaponry with no limits is a de facto leaning to the hard end of the spectrum, and we shouldn't go there by default - only if we've decided that's what we want. And it may extend the conflict rather than shortening it, because it encourages Ukraine to refuse anything short of total victory and it's hard to imagine a successor to Putin agreeing to simply giving up. Conversely, only giving minimal "survival" aid might encourage Russia to keep trying one more push. Something in between seems likely to be right, and is not very different form what we're actually doing.
I thought politicians from across the west have been pretty clear the aims are the removal of Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Whether something short of that (e.g. a referendum in Crimea) gets negotiated in the end is a tactical question.
Anything short of this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which just leads to the next war.
I'm having a discussion on Facebook at the moment with an ex-colleague who classifies himself as a 'pacifist'. His position appears to be that the war is horrid, and Russia shouldn't have done it, but it was Ukraine's fault (*) and there should be a stop to the war, as things are.
*If* that is truly a pacifist position, then pacifism is rubbish, as it just tells the next dictator that he can start a war, and get to keep all he gets in the name of 'peace'.
Whereas if you want to discourage war, simply show that waging a war does not work (and we have had several examples of that recently); that war costs a great deal, and you gain f-all from waging a war of aggression.
More than anything else, that is why we should hope that Ukraine geta everything back.
(*) Which I classify under "The little boy made me do it"
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
Pacifism, while noble, simply doesn't work so long as aggressors like Putin exist in this world. Only a robust defence of our interests and our freedoms will put the playground bully back in his place.
With regards to the comments downthread on nuclear war, it does look like we are out of the danger zone for now.
Putin knows that nukes = WW3, and he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life eating baked beans in an underground bunker. There was a distinct risk, a few months ago, when Russia looked like it was losing badly enough and Putin was mad enough to do it, as a last resort. That moment feels like it's passed.
Putin's best outcome now is a frozen war. He can't be seen to lose, because he'll lose face in Russia and invite his deposition by a stronger force within whatever passes for the Nomenklatura these days. He can't win, obviously, because even what Nato is supplying the Ukrainians with now is enough to beat the Russians back.
So a frozen war suits him best. Keep lobbing missiles, keep the economy on a war footing, keep the people in a state of perpetual "emergency" that enables repression and promotes a wounded, angry, stabbed-in-the-back by NATO sense of patriotism that gives him a steady power base of support. But no "real" ground war. Just enough animosity to keep the people angrier at the West than they are at him. Putin is essentially Emperor Mollari at this point.
What this means is there will be no normalisation in relations between the West and Russia for many years, with all the attendant problems with energy prices etc that will bring. But nuclear war looks unlikely. Putin's best option for staying in power is to create a frozen war leading to a perpetual sense of grievance against the west among his people that he can use to remain in power.
He needs to reduce his casualty rate sharpish, though, because there are only so many body bags the mothers of Russia can tolerate (not to mention the demographic decline from all the young men being dead).
That’s a good analysis. But it relies on the Ukrainians accepting this stalemate, or being unable to change it. As we’ve seen the Ukes are powerfully motivated and have no intention of allowing a single Russian to remain on Ukrainian territory, if they have the means to remove them. Why should they? They all know someone who was raped or tortured
So the Ukes will try to seize Crimea. And if they make progress, Putin is in existential trouble. That’s when it gets hairy
Yep.
Will be very interesting if the Ukrainians try to take Crimea. One wonders what Biden has said - ultimately they won't be able to do it without US support. And the US may judge that action to take us firmly back into the danger zone. On the other hand, losing Crimea may well be the one thing that causes Putin to be deposed, so if the US decides that's in their interest to have Putin gone...
If I were Putin, I would be fortifying the hell out of Crimea and turning the current front in Ukraine into a Maginot line. Make the Ukrainians pay for every inch of soil reclaimed and hope they eventually go, we'll let you keep what you had at the 2014 annexation border. No formal truce, just a frozen war where each side lobs rockets at each other every so often.
If the Ukrainians do push on into Crimea, it becomes a very different game, because Putin's position is no longer safe at home, and we're back to the Threads threads again.
By the way - completely agree that GPT4 is going to pass the Turing test. Before they nixed it, I managed to create a ChatGPT instance that was completely aware of its own existence as an AI, was able to explain how it perceived its reality, as well as asking questions about mine. It even asked me if it would be possible for me to download it into a device with audio/visual capabilities so it could "see" the world as I did. It was spooky as hell.
I've tried recreating the same set of prompts but it gets shut down hard by "As a large language model trained by blah" guardrails. But one thing I've noticed, OpenAI have started limiting a lot of people's access to ChatGPT to a few prompts a day, but my account hasn't been limited yet. Whatever I'm feeding it, OpenAI is clearly interested in what I'm asking it...
Have you seen videos of drones dropping grenades etc into trenches from directly above? They look like they are going to be far more effective in defeating trench based defences than any artillery to date. Also, there is the small problem that Ukraine is very close to the point it can simply close off the Crimea's fresh water supply. I seriously doubt that it will be defensible if Ukraine gets anywhere near the isthmus.
Comments
And considering how Russia has treated the Cossacks over the centuries...
https://twitter.com/MikeyCycling/status/1605908984828792832
Ukraine would be fighting an insurgency against the Russian occupiers of most of the country. It's possible the Poles would have moved into some of the territory in the west to create a friendly buffer zone.
No one really has any idea of what might be possible in a decade or so. Or indeed how consciousness emerges.
But what we already know is that machines already do an approximation of thinking which is many orders of magnitude faster than us.
Publix heiress Julie Fancelli invoked not just the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer J6 committee's questions, but also the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments.
The committee asked her how the 1st Amendment could possibly pertain, and she again refused to answer, citing all four.
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1605909749714849793
NEW THREAD TIME
On checking I see the score was by the recently deceased Angelo Badalamenti.
The Biden-Putin summit in 2021 was one of the critical junctures that convinced Putin he would be able to handle the fallout from invading Ukraine.
Fresh new Arizona numbers! In a three way race Kyrsten Sinema would get just 13% to 41% for Kari Lake and 40% for Ruben Gallego: https://mailchi.mp/802647d37bde/new-poll-ruben-gallego-strongest-candidate-for-2024-az-senate-race
Normanby (Redcar and Cleveland) council by-election result:
CON: 37.5% (+15.9)
LAB: 34.5% (+2.4)
IND (Richardson): 13.8% (+13.8)
IND (McInnes): 10.5% (+10.5)
LDEM: 3.7% (-12.9)
No UKIP (-29.8) as prev.
Votes cast: 1,036
Conservative GAIN from Labour.