Frezik

Send unsolicited cat pictures. Trust me, works way better.

That sorta happened. Discordianism takes some notes from the idea of the Illuminati. You can draw a straight line from there to 4chan, and from 4chan to /r/The_Donald, Qanon, and MAGA as a whole.

You make the claim it has an order of magnitude benefit, then you get to provide the proof.

And there isn’t any. There is some evidence that people will fool themselves into thinking it makes them faster, and it sounds like you’re one of them.

What does not kill you makes you stronger. Chew that hair.

Your experience counts for jack shit. There is zero evidence that AI is substantially improving efficiency. There is some that suggests its effect is negative.

since AI speeds up almost every workflow by about 8 to 10 times

Citation fucking needed.

How do they reduce costs with AI if not by eliminating jobs?

MAGA base doesn’t think like that. South American country, and Trump says there’s cocaine there? Yes, of course that’s true, why even check those facts?

No, that’s exactly what this is about. They came right out and said as much. It won’t work, but they’ll cause a lot of damage in the process of failing.

We will treat you like we treat Al-Qaeda

Pete, how did that work out in the end?

Try this: https://infosec.pub/post/36270822/18522294

How often did Republicans get a trifecta in the same time period? How does their policy agenda successes compare?

What do you call a “victory” that took a lot of political capital and then accomplished basically nothing?

What did the straw ban do? It’s certainly not reducing waste on its own in any significant way; if every single plastic straw was banned worldwide, its impact would still be tiny in comparison to the overall problem. There was a argument that it would get people to start thinking about how much waste is in their lives. That was six or seven years ago. None of that has come to pass, and I’d argue that it was obviously speculative even before anything took effect.

You can’t change anything that matters with this nickel and dime policy shit. It is not even worth the effort to push it.

Right, so you also don’t know how peaceful protest works as a strategy.

You could have posted this exact message to other replies in this thread, but you choose this one. That’s rather telling.

Sure it does. If government can focus on more than one thing, but there are limited success stories, what does that tell us?

The world security environment is deteriorating.

In part thanks to the Heritage Foundation.

Just, why? Why? We already have more nukes than anyone except Russia, and even that is just a number at this point. There is no deterrence gain for adding more. None. Even accepting deterrence arguments as valid, we already have far in excess of what’s needed. At most, we need to swap some old cores.

This has been studied by several military experts over the years:

What was the “right” number? Given the subjective nature of the process, there can be no single figure. However, over the years, a number of knowledgeable individuals have tried to quantify a minimum nuclear requirement and it is worth considering the results of some of their efforts.

In 1957, Admiral Arleigh Burke, then the chief of naval operations, estimated that 720 warheads aboard 45 Polaris submarines were sufficient to achieve deterrence. This figure took into account the fact that some weapons would not work and that some would be destroyed in a Soviet attack (Burke believed that just 232 warheads were required to destroy the Soviet Union). At the time Burke made this estimate, the U.S. arsenal already held six times as many warheads.

Several years later, in 1960, General Maxwell Taylor, former Army chief of staff and future chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that “a few hundred reliable and accurate missiles” (armed with a few hundred warheads) and supplemented by a small number of bombers was adequate to deter the Soviet Union. Yet by this time the United States had some 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads.

In 1964, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his “whiz kids” calculated that 400 “equivalent megatons” (megatons weighted to take into account the varying blast effects from warheads of different yields) would be enough to achieve Mutual Assured Destruction and destroy the Soviet Union as a functioning society. At that time, the U.S. arsenal contained 17,000 equivalent megatons, or 17 billion tons of TNT equivalent.

Even if we accept that we have to have these infernal things, we’re at least an order of magnitude beyond what we actually need.

This is pure giveaway to nuclear military contractors.

You know that US liberals have shitty success stories about anything anywhere in the last two decades, right?

The pits just represent numbers. A 1-bit memory cell typically stores high or low voltage. The numbers 0 and 1 only exist as a platonic ideal, and there are many ways to represent them in the real world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc - This one floundered and died before coming to market

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_optical_data_storage - A bunch of different solutions, and it looks like they were all being developed independently circa 2008, and then went nowhere

My guess is that there’s not much use case beyond archival backups. That’s not going to get the economies of scale that CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays have. It’d be priced for the enterprise market, but they already have perfectly good archival backup solutions. You’d also have to prove that it can be durable for at least a few decades, but even for commercial duplication, previous optical formats are just OK at best on longevity.