DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
Do you think that non-denial of willingness to acquire the territory of a sovereign ally by military means, in the context of said ally having strongly rejected the peaceful transfer of said territory, is of little importance? No shit Trump uses harsher language for ISIS than for Denmark.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
Come on, you understand Bayes no worse than me. No conclusive proof is plausible here, but had you dodged the question, it'd be a weird, stubborn, idiosyncratic failure of communication, which begs for explanation.
Yes I do literally think that at least a few feds will genuinely be scrupulous enough to maintain the kayfabe on an “anonymous” account, and if there is a place for such feds to poast, it'd be here.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
Just to remove any doubt that you are actually able to respond.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
Do you personally think that Israel has nukes, Amadan?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
I of course realize this, which precisely is why Dean staunchly adhering to “not confirm nor deny” party line is amusing. He is well within his rights to post whatever so long as it's compliant with the forum's rules, but I do not consider him entitled to others cooperating in the maintenance of plausible deniability – either regarding Israeli nukes or regarding his likely reasons to dance around the issue.
Or is there some rule against that? Don't hit me with “doxxing” please.
Or is there an American law that private citizens must aid Israel and the USG in this charade? That'd be news to me, though it makes sense.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
Which is even funnier because I have acknowledged/addressed/raised Israeli nuclear weapons in the past
Have you? I don't remember that, might have missed it. Well, let's put it like this. I think your… tendency to act in a way that is isomorphic to avoidance of acknowledgement of the issue is a choice. You're not so autistic as to not understand implications of your words, or the substance of the pushback, and you have chosen again to invite this tangent in the discussion – which really had nothing to do with Israel – by doubling down on meta-level sophistry.
Israel has nukes. One can argue that there are actors who might be interested in nuking them for any number of reasons, including their possession of nuclear weapons, but nobody would plausibly nuke them for an attempt to nuclearize, since that milestone had been passed decades ago and ICBMs can only travel in space (near-Earth space at that), not backwards in time. If you say you had previously acknowledged their nuclear weapons, you could easily have stated that again and precluded the useless tangent. So either you enjoy going on Talmudic tangents to flex this pedantic muscle to the detriment of the quality of discussion, or you have no control over your autistic tendencies, or you actually think this adds worth to the discussion (in which case you're wrong), or you are actually a state employee subject to these restrictions which you interpret in this same Talmudic manner (perhaps you believe you're only barred from saying that you acknowledge Israeli nukes in the present). In any case, this is tiresome behavior.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
6d ago
The fact is simply that Israel has nuclear weapons, everyone knows this, and to observe that it is funny to get an actual state employee or contractor prove his identity in this manner does not constitute an ad hominem. I'll grant the condescension.
someone who is actually in a position to know the real answer to
Oh no, not you too, man.
Shit, is every «free» Western communication platform of note actually ran by glowies? I never took that hypothesis seriously. Well, one more rivet.
This might be the funniest interaction on this forum in years. I knew you're working for the state, but I didn't expect you to flat out participate in the Israeli nuclear kayfabe, and with such poise too. You can't spell out “yes, Israel physically has nuclear weapons already, which is not germane to the logic of my argument”.
Man, what a perverse empire you guys have built. Very shiny surface, but there are a few of these rivets holding everything together, that are impossible to stop thinking about once you notice them.
I retract the above in light of Dean confirming that like any sane person he is reasonably certain Israel has nukes and was just acting cluelessly for no valid reason.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8d ago
From your own article:
Venezuela’s air defense systems and combat aircraft were largely non-operational before recent U.S. strikes, according to multiple sources familiar with the condition of the country’s military equipment, citing long-standing maintenance failures and a shortage of spare parts linked to Russia’s unmet support obligations.
The situation was described as more severe for Venezuela’s long-range air defense assets. The S-300V systems deployed by the country were said to have been in a non-combat-ready state for more than a year, with no meaningful restoration work completed. The systems reportedly lacked functional components and could not be returned to service without external technical support.
As regards Buks, they were just parked in the same spot for months, were likely unmanned, and thus destroying them was a trivial matter.
Venezuela had no combat-ready military. It's all a LARP.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8d ago
If you look closely, this may have demonstrated the insecurity of Chinese SCS holdings in a broader war scenario to air assault
Not really because Venezuela did not have air defenses deployed. This is a very typical US/Israeli war, fireworks are basically extraneous to the mission.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8d ago
To be fair to Americans, has been a long time in the making. Maduro is illegitimate under any reasonable standard, has expressed clear intention to annex sovereign territory, and is incapable of governing. It's a justified war, in casual terms. Doesn't mean it's worth it, except likely for Venezuelans.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8d ago
It also increases the likelihood of a Chinese attack on Taiwan as American asserts are entangled in multiple theaters.
It increases the likelihood of Chinese Century. They do not need to attack Taiwan. If this is what the Taiwanese security guarantor is doing, do you think Taiwan has much confidence in its security, especially as China is quickly moving towards total dominance in the South China Sea?
On the other hand, it is a massive loss of face for Xi because just hours ago Chinese special envoy had met Maduro in Miraflores, which is currently being bombed. Maybe it's 4D chess and Xinnie the Pooh will die of stroke from the sheer indignation? I think it won't be so convenient though.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
12d ago
If it were merely about spending a few billion dollars and a lot of programmer time wouldn't the Pentagon/NSA be totally secured against cyberattack by now? They're not, even state actors can't do this.
State actors have trash talent, for reasons discussed earlier. A few outliers, but at this point Google has like 100x NSA's capability. This needs Google's capability at 100x the scale of labor. Where we differ is that I think this doesn't require 100x Google's capability.
I can't understand the world you're proposing, where Chinese AIs are smart enough to shield the entire Chinese training stack but US AIs are not smart enough to hack them before the shield can be completed
If the Chinese AI can see 'this software is subtly vulnerable to infiltration, I'll write this replacement to secure it and then fit it in with the rest of the stack while still maintaining performance' why can't an American AI see 'this software is subtly vulnerable to infiltration
Because the American AI only has access to internet-connected surfaces, is rate-limited and needs to avoid detection before breach, whereas Chinese AI has root access to the entire stack plus documentation and source code and can examine those subtle vulnerabilities in a massively parallel manner and at its leisure.
The point you keep missing is that at every point, information and time asymmetry exists in favor of the defender, which I think makes up for the observed qualitative and quantitative advantage of the attacker.
Maybe the US decides not to hack, maybe somebody cuts a deal, maybe Trump makes some inexplicable decision or maybe AGI isn't a big deal. But I don't see your scenario happening.
I maintain that this is a lazy hope for having an unfair advantage and scarcely different from "we could bomb three gorges dam, we just choose not to".
I think you are, first of all, insufferably smug. @Amadan is this report-worthy? I don't know. I think it's bad manners to say something like this without providing a citation. I am not an economist and it's timesome [auspicious typo] to deal with not even Eulering but an appeal to its possibility.
Anyway, I was talking of actual household savings. You said:
Look up the savings rate for China vs the US to see where wage suppression comes into play. The government forces large amounts of money into capital investments instead of wages which shows up in the data as a high savings rate.
IMF 2018:
https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/wp/2018/wp18277.pdf
Household savings in China have been trending up since the early 1990s and peaked at 25 percent in 2010 and moderated slightly in recent years. Globally, household savings have been falling (from 14 percent of GDP in 1980 to about 7 percent today). The diverging trend has led to an increasing gap between China and the rest of the world. At 23 percent of GDP, today China’s household savings are 15 percentage points higher than the global average and constitute the main drivers of higher national savings in China.
In the 1990s. China’s corporate savings were relatively low and comparable to the global average. They surged in the 2000s, resulting in an increasingly large gap compared to those of other countries. After the GFC, this gap narrowed significantly, reflecting both the decline in China’s corporate savings and the rise elsewhere. Currently, China’s corporate savings are in line with the global average.
Government: Fiscal savings have been volatile over time, and, on average, constitute only a small portion of national savings. In the past, the fiscal savings level was similar to those of other countries, but in recent years, China’s fiscal savings3 have been higher than the global average, reflecting high capital spending
Quantitatively, demographic shifts alone account for half of the rise in household savings, suggesting that it has been the most important driver
Chinese households save more at every income decile, but the gap is largest at the bottom. Compared to other countries, the household savings rate is higher at every income decile, but the gap is particularly large for the poor.12 In many countries, the savings rates for the bottom 10–20 percentiles are often negative, indicating that substantial social transfers are used to support the basic consumption. In China, however, the savings rate for the poor is still positive and quite high at 20 percent. This points to inadequate social transfers, a lack of progressivity in taxation, and a limited social safety net
etc. So yes there is a state capital spending component, but the main story of the divergence with global trends, as of 2018, was literally private household savings. Maybe you have some newer data.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
This is economically illiterate. Citizens can's save nor invest what they don't earn. You're confusing two separate lines of China Criticism. Wages and thus real income, as I've shown, are growing just fine and proportionately to GDP. Savings rates are genuinely high on the level of private citizens, precisely because they do not trust or cannot access investment channels (other than housing, which is collapsing).
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
Is your argument that all Turing-complete software systems are possible to meaningfully "hack" with finite knowledge within finite computational time? Can you prove this mathematically?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
You're overrating the irreducible combinatorial complexity (especially given that we can improve modularity when software is this cheep) and underrating the computational efficiency. We're in the regime where 1M of near-frontier tokens goes for $0.3, caching-enhanced prefill is almost free. $300 for billion, $300K for trillion, $300M for quadrillion, $30B for 100 quadrillions. Will likely fall 10x within a year while performance creeps towards peak human programming skill, again. Bytedance is currently processing 50 trillion a day for Doubao, they have a near-Gemini 3 multimodal model (Doubao Seed 1.8).
How much is the entire specification of, say, a Huawei server's full hardware-software stack, all relevant documentation, everything? Maybe a few terabytes if we're obsessive. Blow that up 1000x for experiments and proof generation. A few quadrillions, plus the costs of software execution.
How much is invulnerability to ASI hacking worth? It's worth pretty much everything, given that the US is en route to have ASI and is psychotically attached to its finance-powered hegemony.
What is the alternative? Pretty much just preemptive nuclear strike.
They will be forced to do this.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
The first is a 2012 article, and I don't see its relevance. Likewise for the second, it's some mush about export-led growth in principle.
I wonder if you've ever tried to check your claims with simple arithmetic and googling.
Chinese annual wages in manufacturing, far as I can tell, have increased 2.3x between 2013 and 2024. Similarly for all wages (2,38x). Chinese GDP in RMB grew by 2.37x, for a discrepancy of <<1% for all wages and 3% in manufacturing. Chinese labor productivity increased in lockstep with wage increases, resulting in flat pseudo-unit labor costs. Inflation was low and decreasing over most of this period, resulting in 2024 108K wage being worth ≈90K of 2013 RMBs, an increase in purchasing power of 93%.
The nominal hourly wage of an American worker, over the same period, grew 47%, and real purchasing power, owing to inflation, only ≈11%, while GDP grew 72%. Admittedly employment increased and so did total number of Americans, but that's of no consolation to individual worker.
Labor share or GDP:
USA = [58.8, 58.9, 59.2, 58.4, 58.2, 58.5, 59.1, 60.3, 58.6, 57.4, 57.1, 56.8]
PRC = [[47.5, 48.2, 49.0, 49.8, 50.3, 50.7, 51.1, 51.5, 51.8, 52.0, 52.2, 52.4]
What exactly is the theory for claiming that this is evidence of wage suppression in China? Why should they have already caught up if not for Xi's evil wage suppression to nefariously boost export competitiveness?
This doesn't also cover the huge subsidies for industries that act as an indirect tax on local consumers.
This presumes that subsidies are inefficient, rather than efficiently suppressing costs of living, which in China are indeed absurdly low.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
No, it matters enormously whether "powers" are actually meritocratic public institutions with legible functions, or just semi-criminal patronage networks that compete over spoils. Kooperativ Ozero and Benoi Teip are not "powers" in the Western sense, they're clans or mafias. You're kind of trivializing one of the biggest things the West has going for it, here.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
Another important difference is that Britain could kick Argentinian ass very easily, whereas Russia has navigated itself into an existential war. I think on the balance Falklands war made more sense for the respective Empire.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
To proof a complex system against hacking, you'd need ASI.
Thankfully, verifying proofs is easier than generating them, so we're about to find out if this is true.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
Xi broke the chain of succession and limited separations of powers the CCP had built for itself post Mao
Why are we seriously entertaining this superficial think tanker nonsense? There was no separation of powers, there was a detente between oligarchic groups, Shanghai clique and Communist Youth League. China had never developed instintutionalized separation of powers, it was a system of informal customs of succession and balanced Politburo composition. The primary result of this was the viability of endless corruption under the veneer of "growth" from inflating the property bubble.
that is deeply related to the problems China is facing at the moment
It's related in the sense that they had perverted Deng's "getting rich is glorious" edict into a permission for a Ponzi scheme that's now collapsing.
But the country with a 13k GDP per capita running a genocide in its far reaches with a straight line of succession back to the most disastrous dictator in human history? I mean...I'm trying to be nice here...but it's hard...
I maintain that the main issue is lack of humility. It's okay, you'll learn by degrees.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
Modern Chinese are becoming less materialist, less pro-democracy and more nationalist, even as life satisfaction falls, so I really don't think they're attributing their woes to the CCP.
it's not a secret that the Chinese youth are being screwed over by the CCP intentionally depressing wages and an additional issue of huge unemployment
Isn't this pretty much an obvious conspiracy theory? They simply don't have enough high-paying white collar jobs for an enormous surge in overqualified university graduates. Why the hell wouldn't wages be stagnant if supply outstrips demand.
Hell, if you want me to give you a list of my complaints about America I will gladly list them here, but they just won't be that America is poor with a government funneling people's money into a tech race that it's not fit to compete in
I think that's proving his point. Like, this kind of framing strikes me as deserving of very harsh criticism, it's basically barbaric gibberish. But it's part of your culture, your "civilization", such as there is.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13d ago
Do you think it made strategic sense to have a border with an American protectorate?
1. Cynical take.
I think we need to understand that leaders have biases which lead to not entirely rational decisions, and strongmen have little checks on their biases, enabling extreme (not in the normative sense but in the sense of sheer disruptive change) behavior. One can cook up a theory as to why the acquisition of Greenland is actually super important and worth fracturing NATO (or why the costs are overstated). Likely all your bullet points contribute. But so one can rationalize the Russian invasion of Ukraine (which seemed so dumb and negative-EV to me at the time I did not even consider it might happen) or Xi's Zero COVID. It's all not so complex. Putin is an arrogant murderous revanchist with poor awareness of Russia's real capabilities. Xi is a technocratic control freak with a can-do attitude who loves ham-fisted campaign-style governance. Trump is a petty upjumped merchant, a grabby narcissist who feels like a God when he takes something from someone. Money, prestige, land. He got hard for Ukrainian «rare earths», remember? (It was probably a translation error about «black soil» that Ukrainians with their agricultural legacy are so proud of, they don't have appreciable deposits and anyway rare earths are not rare in the Western bloc, the problem is overwhelmingly about refining infrastructure, IP and training). And he apparently believes Venezuelan oil is some goldmine (it's not). He projects this sensibility, too – he might really fear losing Greenland to non-NATO forces, but Russia and China have minimal naval force projection and very little interest in Greenland, relatively speaking, and negligible presence there at the time. Of course China would invest into development, they do that everywhere, but Denmark is a good and loyal ally. Below, @naraburns cites a Jan 8 2026 (wow things move fast) analysis from CSIS: “Already, Chinese rare earth company Shenghe Resources is the largest shareholder in the Kvanefjeld mine, with 12.5 percent ownership. Shenghe signed an MOU in 2018 to lead the processing and marketing of materials extracted from the site.”
OK, let's see the source on this largest shareholder. The link is to 2019 piece from NPR: “Access to Greenland's resources could help break U.S. dependency on China for rare earths. But already a Chinese state-owned company has more than a 12% stake in the Kvanefjeld deposit. Kvanefjeld is owned by Greenland Minerals, an Australian company, and China's Shenghe Resources is its largest shareholder and strategic partner.”
https://ggg.gl/partner/ is defunct, because the name was changed in 2022:
I don't know how much Shenghe Resources held in GGG. Currently ETM Ltd. has two Chinese non-executive directors, of which one seems to represent Shenghe.
That's just a sudden discovery of just how low-quality this war propaganda has gotten in validating Trumpian urgent framing. That's CSIS, not a journalist on Fox or a random poster who's doing ChatGPT+search to validate a take. Americans think themselves free from propaganda but it's a fish and water situation.
You don't threaten your allies (and no Dean, this is absolutely a threat, given the context of their refusal) over something as trivial as “a Chinese company has a 7% stake in one of your mines, which product you can't refine without China because the West has skill issues anyway”. It's not a rational move under any normal calculus. Trump can get anything the US needs from Denmark and Greenland, including militarization and total exclusion of Russian/Chinese activity, without the transfer of sovereignty over the land.
So either it's irrational or the calculus is not “normal”.
2. More cynical take.
…But if I were to entertain the hypothesis of Trump expressing the will of some rational decisionmaker – under which circumstances is total sovereign control actually necessary? I think it's a regime where the US competes with Denmark for resources to be exploited, and thus wants 100% of them, and Denmark would feel threatened and block that if it were in a position to do so. It's not a defensive measure but preparation for a world where raw commodities matter more than any alliance, where
2 weeks ago I said:
I believe that's the proper framework to rationalize Trumpian land grab ambitions and indifference to allies.
More options
Context Copy link