RuslanL

I just demonstrated the principle. Equating something novel that neither us nor said authors could realistically imagine with something unquestionably bad is a logical fallacy (appeal to ignorance).

> Doctor Who

This is a bit ironic, considering the lifespan of Time Lords in that universe.

Or perhaps these authors could not imagine what being 100+ years of healthspan person would actually be like.

Imagine a civilization where death from biological aging would've happened at the age of 12. Would authors from such civilization be able to predict how a 45 year old would function? Or just extrapolate their (maximum 12) years old experience and come to the conclusion that being past 40 is so psychologically damaging that it would've been better to keep things the default way?

Note that I have just used my imagination, and came to different conclusions, so we are on the equal terms with said authors.

Thank you for the link!

I think after reading the document that Putin was very interested in joining NATO, perhaps even more so than Clinton who had perhaps been the primary Russia-in-NATO supporter of that time.

> Putin: But I'll let you know that when I was asked about possible membership for Russia in NATO, I supported the idea. It's important to note, however, that the United States raised objections to my public statement, and I don't think anyone in the alliance is ready for this. > Clinton: Well, we should start now. > Putin: This is the first time that we have heard such a statement from the United States, and I must say I am pleased.

I.e. it was the US and other member states who _opposed_ the idea and the subsequent Clinton's response was first time they have heard at least a verbal indication that things may move forward.

> Clinton: I am very encouraged by what I am hearing. We should think about this further, then maybe talk privately later. Obviously, it is better for Russia to be in the tent. Russia needs to understand that we have many fights inside NATO, and the United States doesn't always win them. The most important fight that we didn't win involved a failure, over two years, to act in Bosnia. We had to work like hell. If Russia and the United States had not had a disagreement about southeast Europe, we would not be having the present debate. Our discussion could be much more straightforward.

I.e. they want to get something back, for example an unconditional support in invading European countries like former Yugoslavia from Russia.

P.S. I also find it funny that the speech of NATO head at the time regarding the matter was removed from the NATO website: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2000/s000306a.htm

That felt very 1984

Right, there were never been any applications to have Russia as NATO member precisely because even initial, informal discussions failed:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-documents-... https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/0... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/p... https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20... https://meduza.io/en/feature/2019/04/04/nato-was-born-70-yea... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...

the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper, and it seems that ruskie were trying to knock the doors since as early as 1954 and were repeatedly told to duck off

i have not found the proofs for the part "would allow using benefits of NATO, by not submitting to anything" - the closest to this was the request to accept them sooner

Ok, about the path you describe: how can one join a military exercise without a prior green light for that? And speaking about the political integration: remember that Turkey is in nato, so it does not need more political integration than Russia had in early 2000th.

What happened is that nato realized that if Russia joins, it will loose the reason to exist (i.e. if the old enemy joins the alliance what is the need for such an alliance anymore?)

So nato bureaucrats understood that they will loose well-paying positions and rejected even initial talks.

> 50% of Russia's oil infrastructure and refining capacity has been taken out

No, it has been merely hit (usually once) and typically repaired in the span of a few days. The whole "double-digits percents have been destroyed" typically comes from not so high quality news agencies. Some things were destroyed more thoroughly, but their margin is largely negligible.

Well, some decades ago if you were a school teacher, you were _asked_ to (1) vote "right" yourself (2) call all parents and ask them to vote "right". If you disobeyed, the school got problems and you got problems. Maybe not enough to make all people comply, but sufficient to get the right outcomes. Same goes for all government-funded workers.

Since then I think they simplified the system and just forge the results outright.

They have asked to be a part of nato twice around 2000th and were both times rejected.

It is correct to argue about misleading terminology. "AI" contains the word "intelligence", and for instance logistic regression algorithm is not intelligent, while it is clearly ML, since machine learns something. As Machine learning is broader category, it should include Artificial Intelligence, not vice versa.

Also, 'every single course' is perhaps an overstatement - a course that I co-authored tries to get it right from the first principles.

Cavemen Yoda merge can.

No.

Does anyone know which tool can be best used instead of Google for "classic", non-AI googling?

67?

To create artificial scarcity on a free market, it should be either a direct monopoly, or a giant cartel that includes every single developer and has mechanisms of punishing the outliers.

Yes, it is a downward spiral. How do you propose to stop it, assuming both parties want another one to disappear from reality, and see any compromise as weakness?

This is a side effect of using a guerilla terrorist tactics - normal people are start to be seen as "threat".

I hope this helps to return some sense into the architectural bureaus that live in their ivory towers of "trendy" architectural styles of modernism or brutalism. Too smug to ask what people actually prefer, too detached from reality to realize how their sterile monstrosities would look in real life.

Do we have comparable European companies though?

Leaving the price formation nuances of some US peace-time military artifacts aside, my point is that manpower a.k.a. human soldiers become more and more obsolete and should not be treated as a main criteria perhaps already in the current Russian-Ukraine conflict.

---

4 days is exactly the time frame to understand that initial calculations have gone wrong and it is time for damage control (try to pull out, initiate peace negotiations, etc).

1. Manpower does not matter anymore. Drones and (soon) robots do.

2. I remember media sphere prior/at the time of invasion rather well. The general consensus was that Ukraine would fall in less than two weeks. The invasion itself started on the Fatherhood Defender's Day and I believe was supposed to be completed before the International Women's Day to make a good picture of Russian soldiers gifting flowers to Ukrainian women.

The majority of Russian population genuinely believes that if the country "becomes weaker", some evil Western soldiers would come and either (belief A) physically exterminate every last of them or (belief B) enslave for eternity.

From that lens, loosing a few millions in a "pre-emptive strike" to save the bulk of population looks reasonable. Don't ask me how they ended up with this picture of reality.

Indeed. I've heard Elon is upgrading his Colossus computer just to experience dragging grey rectangles seamlessly.

But Microsoft is a small business which just cannot afford to have two versions of interfaces for clearly distinct modes of interaction: touch and mouse-based. They had no other choice except trying to merge things together.

Yes.

How is $1450 justified in modern times?

Journals receive papers for free, peer review is free, the only expenses are hosting a .pdf and maintaining an automated peer review system. I would've understood $14.50 but where does the two orders of magnitude higher number come from?