mikem170

Does that include all the money spent on military resesarch?

I don't know that I'd characterize the military industrial complex, especially the private parts, as being made of up far-left types.

It seems that funding has become much more political lately, the problem getting worse.

Civil war. Social upheavals. Gridlock. Oligarchs.

Didn't the U.S. also have all those problems, despite having a president?

There was an assertion made in an ancestor comment that a committee without a leader can't function, but that doesn't seem proven by those problems in Roman history under their Senate, since the U.S. with a president had the same kinds of problems.

I assume other factors are at play, oligarchs for example. And I question the downside risk of having a strong presidency, cult of personality for example.

I agree that the term "did just fine" is subjective.

Wouldn't that depend on how much data? I assume those who own the data would rather buy the hardware and create models from this data themselves, as opposed to sending their data off to someone else, or allowing it to be pirated.

What number am I supposed to be looking at in that cbp.gov link?

I saw "Total CPB Enforcemnt Actions" yearly numbers for inadmissibles, expulsions and apprehensions (as per the footnotes). Are those the numbers your are referring to?

I don't get it. Weren't those the waves of people after the pandemic, the numbers showing how many were turned around?

GrapheneOS has attempted to cover this, it comes with an Auditor app that can be used from another Android device to check for tampering.

> The Auditor app uses hardware-based security features to validate the identity of a device, along with the authenticity and integrity of the operating system. It ensures the device is running a verified operating system with a locked bootloader and that no tampering has occurred." [0]

I assume that it would be quickly discovered if Motorola were tampering with phones en masse.

[0] https://attestation.app/about

A few generations ago they were enslaving people [0]. This is what racism can lead to. Maintaining our heritage, our way of life, some would say.

Hopefully their population decline doesn't hit them too hard. But that, and their lack natural of resources, could lead to bad things. Fascists and their ilk thrive in such situations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan#World_War_II

I suggest that the new amendment make it illegal for devices to track us.

Cameras, microphones, computers, robots, algorithms, etc would not be able track people. Those are in-animate objects, not people, and shouldn't have any rights, especially the right to intrude on people's privacy.

Individuals would not be able to leverage such devices for power, influence or other selfish raesons.

Only another person, a real human, can watch you in public. Even take notes on you. Like a doctor. Or the employees of a grocery store.

It's the lobbyists and regulatory capture and monopolies that make it cancereous.

> Please cite these things that are factually incorrect.

At the top of our thread, where you said Iran did not follow the JCPOA [0] and that they were denying access to military sites [1] where they were doing nuclear research. Repeated in another thread [2] under this topic. I presented sources indicated your statments were not accurate [3]. You said that you didn't have sources at the moment and might need to conceded that point [4].

>> Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites.

> That's not recent. Don't you know your history?

They have been fighting recently, and still are. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other on this one.

> Persian != Muslim - don't you know your history?

I didn't say they were. I said that they are a proud people. And not happy to be imposed upon.

> The Persians, the Iranians, they forget about this stuff just like every other country. Nobody has a "long memory", and if Iran is holding on to some 2,000 year old grudge

The CIA admitted to overthrowing their democratically elected government in the 1950s [5], putting the Shah back in power, who went on to abuse the people of that country. That's not 2000 years ago. They got out from under that in 1979. And that wasn't a good thing for the people there, either.

> Most people don't care about Islam or Muslims. This is unlike Islamic countries who care very much if you aren't Islamic. Maybe Islamic countries should grow up and get with the times?

I saw more anti-mulsim sentiment in the U.S. during the war against Iraq. Shockingly unexpected sometimes, like random enounters with a Walmart manager making small talk. I still see anti-muslim sentiment now in relation to refugees who look different. Group think, fanned by meme's on facebook.

I assume the same happens in Muslim countries. It's pretty easy to whip up public sentiment against colonial masters. And it's pretty easy to show "Death to America!" videos to Americans and get them all hopped up, too. It's how they maniuplate us. They don't tell prople that Iranians also say "Death to traffic!" [6] like Americans say "Fuck traffic!"

> As an aside I detest JD Vance but he's calling this guy evil primarily because he's a communist, not a Muslim.

I agree with your sentiment on JD Vance in general, but he mentioned religion is his Michigan speech about Abdul el Sayed, I didn't see any mention of communism: “What I see is a man who has sympathy and compassion for people who share his religion, but have nothing for people who don’t. A person who will apologize for a murderer so long as he looks the right way, but will not understand the plight of an innocent child if that person has the wrong faith” [7]

Question: Do you have a different source on what JD Vance said? Why do you think he meant communism?

There's things that need to be talked about in reference to the relationship with Iran. I think we should talk about what is true, and not be misled by propaganda.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49660178

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661916#49663356

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49658299#49661062

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661916#49665530

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661916#49665633

[5] https://apnews.com/article/iran-1953-coup-cia-218323db3cc1ac...

[6] https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/video/tv-show/t...

[7] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/31/politics/jd-vance-abdul-e...

Yes, I'm serious. The Persians are a proud culture and know their history. Just like a lot of other people.

You don't think religion still motivates people? There have been Sunni vs Shia and Christian vs Muslim conflicts for about a thousand years, more on than off. Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites. So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc.

Are you saying that those in the Middle East don't know the history of all that, or don't notice that they have been imposed upon lately by foreign powers?

Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil? They aren't like us. They want to kill us all. They'll never stop. Etc. They're going to nuke Boston if we don't attack. I know a lot of religious people looking at current events as end-of-times bliblical - New Jerusalem, second coming, etc. These people have been very politically influental. Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil.

Those in power use religion to radicalize people. Are you saying this isn't happening and hasn't been happening for hundreds of years?

I'm into history, so maybe I'm coming from a different angle.

You've posted quite a bit in this thread and repeated a number of things that appear to be factually incorrect. Are you sure that you are well informed and not making biased assumptions?

The IAEA also said: "In its May 2025 report, the IAEA noted Iran’s enrichment to 60% purity—beyond JCPOA limits but not prohibited under the NPT itself" [0]

Apparently the Iranians started enriching to that 60% level, and self reporting, in 2021, as leverage in the unsuccessful negotions to bring the JCPOA back into effect to get sanctions dropped.

International politics is what it is - power and self interest. There are those who don't want Iran to have a nuke. Iran has its reasons for wanting that capability. Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world.

Ironic that the U.S. got the iranian nucear program started, eh? [1]

[0] https://nuclearwatch.net/2025-09-11/enrichment-under-the-npt...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Origin...

> literally no part of this sentence is accurate

Let me break it down some for you, and anyone else who may be interested:

1) Iran is dictating terms

Look how often Trump has changed his story on how long the war will last [0]:

> March 2, We will easily prevail. We're already substantially ahead of our time projections

> March 9, We're ahead of our initial timeline by a lot. I would say that we probably would not have thought after a month we'd be here

> March 17, We'll be leaving in pretty much the very near future

> March 31, I think two or three weeks

> April 1, I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion

> June 11, We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran

> Aug. 6, I think it's going to end pretty soon

Now he's sayign the war will be over right after the midterms [1].

Then there's all the times he said the straight was open, when Iran still was able to strike ships trying to transit.

Does that sound like someone who is in control of events? I've never heard a U.S. president who was wrong so many times.

2) Allies in the region have seen that the U.S. cannot protect them

> During the conflict, Iran reportedly carried out attacks or hostile actions against multiple countries and targets across the region, including Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman—where specific incidents involved ports and ships—Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, the British overseas territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and the West Bank. Additional alleged activity was reported in Azerbaijan, while maritime targets included vessels of the United States Navy and Thai-flagged ships operating in the region. [2]

The above page includes a detailed list of all of the above attacks [3] and caulaties [4]. More ally citizens have been killed than U.S. military personel.

Trump even threatened to bomb an ally at one point:

> President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman - a US ally - if it "gets in the way" of his administration's own talks with Iran, Fox News reports. [5]

And now the war is expanding, with the Saudis, a U.S. ally, being attacked:

> Yemen's Tehran-backed Houthis attacked four cities in the south of U.S. ally Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, wounding more than 70 people and setting oil installations ablaze. [6]

The Saudis and even some of our European allies are restricting U.S. air traffic [7]

3) and are making other accomodations

Regional powers are making alliances amongst themselves, alliances that do not include the Unites States:

> The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, formally the Mecca Defence Alliance, is a defence pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey signed into force on 7 August 2026 [8]

4)reducing U.S. influence in the region and beyond

China is using this as an opportunity to increase their influence in the region:

> Iran expresses willingness to continue diplomatic negotiations but vows to defend its sovereignty firmly, appreciating China's role in regional peace and seeking deeper cooperation with China. [9]

The U.S. has shown itself as incapable of securing shipping in this straight, and, by implication, other strategic straights. Countries have seen how having U.S. bases in their territories become a liability, drawing enemy fire, enemy fire that the U.S. is not able to intercept. This will echo for a loong time.

A large part of U.S. influence, and related military and economic power, was build-up over 80 years. Eighty Years of alliances and goodwill. And all that is very much in decline.

[0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/08/28/donal...

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/09/trump-iran-war-end-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_during_the_202...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_during_the_202...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_during_the_202...

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5dzk0ryzdo

[6] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2026/09/08/iran-cr...

[7] https://saudipress.com/saudi-arabia-bars-u-s-bases-and-airsp...][https://cde.news/italy-denies-sigonella-use-to-u-s-war-fligh...][https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-refuses-us-request-to-use-r...

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca_Joint_Defence_Agreement

[9] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-actively-c...

I don't know how you got to "Iran probably wasn't following the treaty", when their adhereance to the JCPOA was certified by the U.S. (twice by the Trump administration [0][1]), until Trump wanted to renogiate, withdrawing and re-imposing sanctions in 2018. Everything I found says that the Iranians followed the treaty until they withdrew in 2021.

You mentioned military sites... I wondered if the IAEA ever requested access to military sites? They were entitled to do so, under the JCPOA. I couldn't find anything in a quick search I just did.

In your response above, you seem to imply that the Iranians may have already sneaked nuclear matarial to military sites. But the The IAEA found no evidence of that, at least as of 2025, well after the treaty, as per this summary report:

> Iran held enriched uranium at all three main nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. There are no indications that Iran moved stocks outside of these three sites [2]

Once again, do you have sources for what you are saying, that the Iranians weren't following the treaty while it was in effect, or that there were military sites where they were hiding nuclear research? I'm not finding any.

Or is this just an opinion, or a guess? I would say that one must be careful, those who profit in some way from war always exaggerate the enemy.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-d...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nu...

[2] https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-v...

> Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA

Source?

> Just to be clear: the current situation is a huge mess caused by one deranged leader.

Agreed. The situation is worse than before the U.S. attack.

Iran has proven they can control the straight, threatening the world's energy supply. This is a more powerful weapon than a nuke (which multiple agencies, including U.S. intel, said they didn't have when this all started). New leadership in Iran is more galvanized against the U.S. than ever.

The U.S. already lost this war. Iran is dictating terms. Allies in the region have seen that the U.S. cannot protect them, and are making other accomodations, reducing U.S. influence in the region and beyond.

Agreed, if id becomes madatory for voting then id needs to be prvided for free, otherwise it is effectively a poll tax, and poll taxes are illegal.

Ideally we'd democratically decide whether we want this or not. We can make spurrious tracking (which is usually for profit) illegal, if we want.

People in former communist countries and other oppressive places often have a different attitude about such things. They learned the hard way.

Crimes can be investigated without always-on survellience. Like has been done for decades.

Are all these deployed cameras actually solving crimes? What are the numbers? Aren't there already a bunch of other ways to track cars, like onstar sim chips?

Always-on survellience is always abused. It's already abused by US police officers. tracking their x-wives for example, the new boyfriends, etc. And there's room for much worse. Many of us grew up hearing about things that totalitarian communist governments were doing. The East German's would have loved to have such technologies.

New capabilities are being rolled out by flock- facial recognition and bluetooth tracking, for example.

This seems to be another example of the government contracting with private companies to do things that would be illegal for the government to do themselves.

Historically stuff like this ends up being abused by the establishment. facial recognition in Hong Kong. Protesters dissappeared. Stingray phone tracking in Portland. Protesters picked up by black SUVs. Freezing bank accounts in Ottawa. ICE deporting people without due process. Just keeps getting worse.

Think of all the modern niceties we enjoy that protesters earned. Will protesters of the future stand a chance when everyone is tracked all the time?

> It is a product of outside Chinese money being funneled into US politics to hobble the US in Artificial Intelligence

Or this could be Russian propaganda, to manipulate US opinion against China in this case. What are your sources?

Or, perhaps the prevailing narrative is correct, people have been told by the tech titans that AI will change everything and they'll loose their jobs, so they don't like it.

In fact, whoever is saying the Chinese are tricking Americans may be trying to get more people to support AI by appealing to nationlism - that the Chinese will get us. A double cross.

Lots of people are scared of those who are different or unfamiliar. They live in their own bubble - prefering homogenous suburbs, non-poor office workers, algorithmic feeds for their cognitive biases, etc.

And fear, whether real or induced by manipulation, has precipitated a -lot- of atrocities in the world.

Ah, I was more focused on the effectiveness as opposed to the quantity, i.e. if you have a million dollars, that could be decent way to spend it, given the world we live in.

I see what you are saying - that it's not enough compared to what the other side spends.

Money seems to decide too many of these things...

Sounds like enough to pay some people for some months or a year or two - a combination of experts, part-time specialists, cotractors, etc. - to do things like gather some data via their contacts, hack together a meta-study, put out a glossy report andsome press releases, etc.

Russia has been trading with a number of countries[0]. Mostly China, also significantly with India, Turkey and the EU, and much lesser amounts to 30+ other countries, including the US, the UK, UAE, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, etc.

I don't know if the above data helps make your original point or not. Would you say that all those countries funding the Russian war against Ukraine? Perhaps for various reasons.

Wouldn't a country pushing for global conflict - really global - sow disorder by doing things like breaking up alliances, threatening annexations, disrupting shipping, free trade and energy supplies, starting wars, etc? Given that all countries do things like this to one extant or another, how many has China done, compared to others?

I would say that China asserting itself as a regional power, with a navy that threatens Taiwan but can't project power much further than that, wouldn't turn into a global conflict, unless other global powers feel so threatened they make it global. Playing on fear, for power and profit.

[0] summarized by several graphs at the bottom of https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/russian-foreign-trade-tracke...

> funding the conquest of Ukraine

It is well known that China is still engaged in trade with Russia- oil and gold going one way, drones and weapon components going the other.

But you said funding, and I assume you meant things like grants or loans. Do you have any sources for that? I could only find one that was attributed to indirect open source intelligence, nothing specific.

I'm not sure about some of the things you mentioned. Stuff like this is food for social media algorithms - "the world is ending!" But they are interesting points to think about.

How much of what you said holds true in other cultures with plumetting birth rates? Japan, Mexico and India for example? Russia? Seems to be quite a few exceptions.

Quick comments on your post: 1) I'm impressed by the young, they're trying, maybe more so than gen-x and boomers, who went from lazy-as-anybody to mucho reactionary, 2) That graph doesn't say that 80% of men drop out of the dating pool, 3) I agree that affordibility is a problem, but I'd question both sides of the supply/demand curve, and (in the U.S.) Reaganomics, 4) how does partisanship relate to birth rates? For example, Congo is divided, but birth rate is high, 5) I agree that algorithmic profit seeking social media is a huge problem, but those who rule us like to push their propaganda, and they are doing a good job.

I've always heard that lower birth rates were correlated with urbanization and educating women. Always and everywhere. That having kids in the city costs too much, compared to on farms, and that women want to avoid a bad situation if they can.

How to make things better?

I think that there is a lot we can do to make life more social and affordable, for example imagine a world with more cheaper housing options, no need for a car, no need to wage-slave full time, less mercenarial, etc. Better living for less money. Easier to have kids. In aggregate we are plenty productive enough. It'll take time to unwind so many decades going in the other direction. And we haven't even started. Because the establishment billionaires caupturing all the new wealth don't want change.

I assume that kids will figure it out eventually. This is self correcting. The world will go on :-)

There were a lot of voters who didn't want those cuts. So they complain. Is that what swing voters thought they were getting?

The government spends like 1000 billion on the military, a couple/few 10s of billions on aid is just being charitable. And projects soft power, buying good will. And was probably well used by the cia.

And then there's the philopher Peter Singer, who would say that not helping other people is immoral. Most people wouldn't go that far, but some do. Some religions ephasize such things.

Opinions differ.

So does that mean our social/political/economic system (culture) is a failure - having created the conditions for population decline (including industrialization and urbanization), but unable to survive the consequences (shrinking birthrates)?

Lots of the world gets by on a fraction of US per-capita GDP, and isn't as screwed up as Haiti. Countries like Japan, Korea, Italy and others in Europe are blazing trails with this problem, a generation of aging (no millenials) ahead of the US (assuming no more immigration). We'll see how that works out.

Scary to back-slide on standards of living, but it's happened before in history. Best not to get too comfortable with the idea of the American Dream. Stay flexible. Stay healthy. Good luck!

> I want to see humanity live and thrive

Me too. It would be nice if we, as a society, did more to prioritize that.

Letting big tech psycholocally pollute everyone for profit is not helping.

> maybe you don't give a crap if today's teenagers will inhabit a horrific world with twice as many old people as society can afford to support

I wouldn't say that a lower population needs to result in a horrific world.

I assume standards of living would change. What other choice is there, given the change in the ratio of workers to retirees? Not everyone could afford a big house of their own, a car, and tech toys and other possessions, but we are productive enough as a society to feed, cloth and shelter everyone, including a bunch of retired people. We could still afford the really important benifits of modernity. And we keep getting more productive, finding easier ways to do more, so who knows?

The Ahmish wouldn't describe a simplier way of life as as horrific. Nor people born a hundred years ago. Nor people living like that in many countries today. Change society like that and, who knows, young people might be more open to having kids again.

Why do you think things would end up being horrific?

> no one really does audit it

Isn't this article about an AI that just audited it?

> not more secure than others

Didnt the audit only found one bug, much less than other kernels from the same audit?