@khurrumm.bsky.social
It'll be interesting if weapons are found.
December 21, 2025 at 5:07 PM
It'll be interesting if weapons are found.
But also... They know that they're not really at risk.
Nuclear powers do not directly attack each other, because it's not worth it to be on that escalation ladder.
You would need one side accidentally using nukes, and the whole situation could turn into a mess for all humanity.
Nuclear powers do not directly attack each other, because it's not worth it to be on that escalation ladder.
You would need one side accidentally using nukes, and the whole situation could turn into a mess for all humanity.
December 14, 2025 at 2:35 PM
But also... They know that they're not really at risk.
Nuclear powers do not directly attack each other, because it's not worth it to be on that escalation ladder.
You would need one side accidentally using nukes, and the whole situation could turn into a mess for all humanity.
Nuclear powers do not directly attack each other, because it's not worth it to be on that escalation ladder.
You would need one side accidentally using nukes, and the whole situation could turn into a mess for all humanity.
If the goal had been to stop needless harm to Ukraine and Ukrainians, this is not how it would've been handled.
At the time, the US did want the war to continue.
You don't have to give the Russians what they want, but you do need practical proposals to restabilize the situation.
At the time, the US did want the war to continue.
You don't have to give the Russians what they want, but you do need practical proposals to restabilize the situation.
December 14, 2025 at 2:32 PM
If the goal had been to stop needless harm to Ukraine and Ukrainians, this is not how it would've been handled.
At the time, the US did want the war to continue.
You don't have to give the Russians what they want, but you do need practical proposals to restabilize the situation.
At the time, the US did want the war to continue.
You don't have to give the Russians what they want, but you do need practical proposals to restabilize the situation.
What someone is considering doing is defined by their reality.
Russia is in no position to wage a larger war. Their economy and population can't support it.
I would not be surprised that Europrean leaders understand Russia's reality - but that's different from what you say to the public.
Russia is in no position to wage a larger war. Their economy and population can't support it.
I would not be surprised that Europrean leaders understand Russia's reality - but that's different from what you say to the public.
December 14, 2025 at 2:29 PM
What someone is considering doing is defined by their reality.
Russia is in no position to wage a larger war. Their economy and population can't support it.
I would not be surprised that Europrean leaders understand Russia's reality - but that's different from what you say to the public.
Russia is in no position to wage a larger war. Their economy and population can't support it.
I would not be surprised that Europrean leaders understand Russia's reality - but that's different from what you say to the public.
It's basically impossible.
The "Russia will attack a NATO country" propaganda is just to get European voters to keep supporting the Ukraine war.
If European leaders actually thought it was inevitable, there would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. Which there aren't.
The "Russia will attack a NATO country" propaganda is just to get European voters to keep supporting the Ukraine war.
If European leaders actually thought it was inevitable, there would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. Which there aren't.
December 14, 2025 at 8:15 AM
It's basically impossible.
The "Russia will attack a NATO country" propaganda is just to get European voters to keep supporting the Ukraine war.
If European leaders actually thought it was inevitable, there would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. Which there aren't.
The "Russia will attack a NATO country" propaganda is just to get European voters to keep supporting the Ukraine war.
If European leaders actually thought it was inevitable, there would be boots on the ground in Ukraine. Which there aren't.
It's important to understand that the Russians exporting a lot of resources after the USSR's fall is part of why we didn't get major inflation decades ago.
Reduced trade access to Russian / Ukrainian resources makes lives of people around the world harder.
We need a return to normalcy for everyone
Reduced trade access to Russian / Ukrainian resources makes lives of people around the world harder.
We need a return to normalcy for everyone
December 12, 2025 at 9:04 AM
It's important to understand that the Russians exporting a lot of resources after the USSR's fall is part of why we didn't get major inflation decades ago.
Reduced trade access to Russian / Ukrainian resources makes lives of people around the world harder.
We need a return to normalcy for everyone
Reduced trade access to Russian / Ukrainian resources makes lives of people around the world harder.
We need a return to normalcy for everyone
Many of these countries can build nuclear weapons if they really want to. Quite fast even.
It's just that every additional country that develops them increases risk for the planet.
And it's "very improbable" that Russia will ever do a significant attack on a NATO country.
It's just that every additional country that develops them increases risk for the planet.
And it's "very improbable" that Russia will ever do a significant attack on a NATO country.
December 12, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Many of these countries can build nuclear weapons if they really want to. Quite fast even.
It's just that every additional country that develops them increases risk for the planet.
And it's "very improbable" that Russia will ever do a significant attack on a NATO country.
It's just that every additional country that develops them increases risk for the planet.
And it's "very improbable" that Russia will ever do a significant attack on a NATO country.
The point is that Russia does not actually have reason to make things bad for Europe... Because it is ultimately self-harm.
The Ukraine conflict is ultimately an expression of left-over Cold War thinking.
The west kept expanding NATO, and Russia still analyzes threats the way the Soviets did.
The Ukraine conflict is ultimately an expression of left-over Cold War thinking.
The west kept expanding NATO, and Russia still analyzes threats the way the Soviets did.
December 12, 2025 at 8:58 AM
The point is that Russia does not actually have reason to make things bad for Europe... Because it is ultimately self-harm.
The Ukraine conflict is ultimately an expression of left-over Cold War thinking.
The west kept expanding NATO, and Russia still analyzes threats the way the Soviets did.
The Ukraine conflict is ultimately an expression of left-over Cold War thinking.
The west kept expanding NATO, and Russia still analyzes threats the way the Soviets did.
Sounds like something that would get reverted the second Trump wasn't in power.
December 10, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Sounds like something that would get reverted the second Trump wasn't in power.
It's essentially an expression of the current right wing US viewpoint:
1. They want Europe to remain white.
2. They think that European demographics are weak and that the economies will become weaker.
3. It is true that if Europe could have full access to Russian trade, that it'd be better off.
1. They want Europe to remain white.
2. They think that European demographics are weak and that the economies will become weaker.
3. It is true that if Europe could have full access to Russian trade, that it'd be better off.
December 8, 2025 at 8:20 AM
It's essentially an expression of the current right wing US viewpoint:
1. They want Europe to remain white.
2. They think that European demographics are weak and that the economies will become weaker.
3. It is true that if Europe could have full access to Russian trade, that it'd be better off.
1. They want Europe to remain white.
2. They think that European demographics are weak and that the economies will become weaker.
3. It is true that if Europe could have full access to Russian trade, that it'd be better off.
There are two sides to this:
1. What good governance looks like, and what will benefit the country most.
2. What will bring in more voters, and better serve existing voters.
Democrats' chances of winning would likely improve they brought on more Mamdanis.
But how that'd go with #1 is less clear.
1. What good governance looks like, and what will benefit the country most.
2. What will bring in more voters, and better serve existing voters.
Democrats' chances of winning would likely improve they brought on more Mamdanis.
But how that'd go with #1 is less clear.
December 7, 2025 at 5:47 PM
There are two sides to this:
1. What good governance looks like, and what will benefit the country most.
2. What will bring in more voters, and better serve existing voters.
Democrats' chances of winning would likely improve they brought on more Mamdanis.
But how that'd go with #1 is less clear.
1. What good governance looks like, and what will benefit the country most.
2. What will bring in more voters, and better serve existing voters.
Democrats' chances of winning would likely improve they brought on more Mamdanis.
But how that'd go with #1 is less clear.
Russian leaders know that their economic and demographic situation is bad, and thus that their outlook is bad.
Europe being destroyed would make them even worse off than they are now.
Europe being destroyed would make them even worse off than they are now.
December 7, 2025 at 11:05 AM
Russian leaders know that their economic and demographic situation is bad, and thus that their outlook is bad.
Europe being destroyed would make them even worse off than they are now.
Europe being destroyed would make them even worse off than they are now.
The point is that in reality, it's a non-nuclear power vs. a nuclear power.
Not two opposing nuclear powers fighting.
And Russia would still be better off with its trade with Europe more directly restored (instead of the current indirect thing that's lower profit)
Not two opposing nuclear powers fighting.
And Russia would still be better off with its trade with Europe more directly restored (instead of the current indirect thing that's lower profit)
December 7, 2025 at 11:04 AM
The point is that in reality, it's a non-nuclear power vs. a nuclear power.
Not two opposing nuclear powers fighting.
And Russia would still be better off with its trade with Europe more directly restored (instead of the current indirect thing that's lower profit)
Not two opposing nuclear powers fighting.
And Russia would still be better off with its trade with Europe more directly restored (instead of the current indirect thing that's lower profit)
With the US not exactly being a trustworthy ally anymore, the Europeans are definitely not going to disband NATO.
It doesn't matter who comes to power.
They know that they are more exposed than the US would be.
Although, both France and the UK can be sure that they won't be attacked directly.
It doesn't matter who comes to power.
They know that they are more exposed than the US would be.
Although, both France and the UK can be sure that they won't be attacked directly.
December 7, 2025 at 11:02 AM
With the US not exactly being a trustworthy ally anymore, the Europeans are definitely not going to disband NATO.
It doesn't matter who comes to power.
They know that they are more exposed than the US would be.
Although, both France and the UK can be sure that they won't be attacked directly.
It doesn't matter who comes to power.
They know that they are more exposed than the US would be.
Although, both France and the UK can be sure that they won't be attacked directly.
It's a proxy war. NATO is pretending that it's not directly at war with Russia.
Both NATO and Russia know that significant direct attacks on the other are no go, because you can't afford to be on that escalation ladder.
Both NATO and Russia know that significant direct attacks on the other are no go, because you can't afford to be on that escalation ladder.
December 7, 2025 at 11:00 AM
It's a proxy war. NATO is pretending that it's not directly at war with Russia.
Both NATO and Russia know that significant direct attacks on the other are no go, because you can't afford to be on that escalation ladder.
Both NATO and Russia know that significant direct attacks on the other are no go, because you can't afford to be on that escalation ladder.
The thing with the shoes is that there's not enough pushback, and they want the continued pretense that they are making people safer.
Sending people to jail on the back of dodgy tech is the more the kind of thing that would definitely get pushback from human rights groups (with lawyers).
Sending people to jail on the back of dodgy tech is the more the kind of thing that would definitely get pushback from human rights groups (with lawyers).
December 7, 2025 at 6:53 AM
The thing with the shoes is that there's not enough pushback, and they want the continued pretense that they are making people safer.
Sending people to jail on the back of dodgy tech is the more the kind of thing that would definitely get pushback from human rights groups (with lawyers).
Sending people to jail on the back of dodgy tech is the more the kind of thing that would definitely get pushback from human rights groups (with lawyers).
Those kinds of projects definitely do happen.
MRI based has been tried, and you may be able to get better accuracy by adding on AI... If you could get enough data.
A government embarrassing themselves by taking on untrustworthy tech (for a while) certainly wouldn't be shocking.
Doubt it'd last.
MRI based has been tried, and you may be able to get better accuracy by adding on AI... If you could get enough data.
A government embarrassing themselves by taking on untrustworthy tech (for a while) certainly wouldn't be shocking.
Doubt it'd last.
December 7, 2025 at 6:33 AM
Those kinds of projects definitely do happen.
MRI based has been tried, and you may be able to get better accuracy by adding on AI... If you could get enough data.
A government embarrassing themselves by taking on untrustworthy tech (for a while) certainly wouldn't be shocking.
Doubt it'd last.
MRI based has been tried, and you may be able to get better accuracy by adding on AI... If you could get enough data.
A government embarrassing themselves by taking on untrustworthy tech (for a while) certainly wouldn't be shocking.
Doubt it'd last.
As far as it goes, none of the research on a really trustworthy lie detector has borne fruit – and not for lack of trying.
Reading minds is obviously much harder.
It's plausible that a future version of Neuralink could "eventually" do it (maybe), but you'd need invasive technology for the sensors.
Reading minds is obviously much harder.
It's plausible that a future version of Neuralink could "eventually" do it (maybe), but you'd need invasive technology for the sensors.
December 7, 2025 at 6:27 AM
As far as it goes, none of the research on a really trustworthy lie detector has borne fruit – and not for lack of trying.
Reading minds is obviously much harder.
It's plausible that a future version of Neuralink could "eventually" do it (maybe), but you'd need invasive technology for the sensors.
Reading minds is obviously much harder.
It's plausible that a future version of Neuralink could "eventually" do it (maybe), but you'd need invasive technology for the sensors.
Building a machine to read the minds of unwilling participants would not be easy.
Also, if anyone's going to do it, it'd likely be a black project started by the government.
In which case, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Also, if anyone's going to do it, it'd likely be a black project started by the government.
In which case, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
December 7, 2025 at 6:16 AM
Building a machine to read the minds of unwilling participants would not be easy.
Also, if anyone's going to do it, it'd likely be a black project started by the government.
In which case, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Also, if anyone's going to do it, it'd likely be a black project started by the government.
In which case, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Norway is already a part of NATO. They are at no risk of being attacked by Russia in the first place.
Stopping a potential Russian advance on NATO is trivial.
Stopping a potential Russian advance on NATO is trivial.
December 7, 2025 at 6:12 AM
Norway is already a part of NATO. They are at no risk of being attacked by Russia in the first place.
Stopping a potential Russian advance on NATO is trivial.
Stopping a potential Russian advance on NATO is trivial.
Jeff Bezos is also planning to donate most of his wealth within his life.
Although, like Bill Gates, he's more focused on how to use it effectively, since once you get on the scale of "the world's problems", hundreds of billions of dollars becomes chump change.
Although, like Bill Gates, he's more focused on how to use it effectively, since once you get on the scale of "the world's problems", hundreds of billions of dollars becomes chump change.
December 7, 2025 at 5:31 AM
Jeff Bezos is also planning to donate most of his wealth within his life.
Although, like Bill Gates, he's more focused on how to use it effectively, since once you get on the scale of "the world's problems", hundreds of billions of dollars becomes chump change.
Although, like Bill Gates, he's more focused on how to use it effectively, since once you get on the scale of "the world's problems", hundreds of billions of dollars becomes chump change.
He looks very bored.
December 5, 2025 at 1:59 AM
He looks very bored.
Heh. Possibly an issue where its training dataset conflicted with the data it pulled.
The default summary Google throws out before you shift to AI Mode does tend to be rather weak.
The default summary Google throws out before you shift to AI Mode does tend to be rather weak.
December 4, 2025 at 5:20 AM
Heh. Possibly an issue where its training dataset conflicted with the data it pulled.
The default summary Google throws out before you shift to AI Mode does tend to be rather weak.
The default summary Google throws out before you shift to AI Mode does tend to be rather weak.
Sounds like unnecessary drama.
The only thing that could make China take action, is if it looks like other powers are trying to stop them from being able to take action.
The people of Taiwan broadly favor maintaining the status quo.
China won't damage its economy by starting a war for no reason.
The only thing that could make China take action, is if it looks like other powers are trying to stop them from being able to take action.
The people of Taiwan broadly favor maintaining the status quo.
China won't damage its economy by starting a war for no reason.
November 27, 2025 at 9:54 AM
Sounds like unnecessary drama.
The only thing that could make China take action, is if it looks like other powers are trying to stop them from being able to take action.
The people of Taiwan broadly favor maintaining the status quo.
China won't damage its economy by starting a war for no reason.
The only thing that could make China take action, is if it looks like other powers are trying to stop them from being able to take action.
The people of Taiwan broadly favor maintaining the status quo.
China won't damage its economy by starting a war for no reason.