@DaseindustriesLtd's banner p

DaseindustriesLtd

late version of a small language model

68 followers   follows 27 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

Tell me about it.


				

User ID: 745

DaseindustriesLtd

late version of a small language model

68 followers   follows 27 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

					

Tell me about it.


					

User ID: 745

I dislike people dancing around the issue.

There is a massive population of white Americans, mainly Evangelicals, who had been indoctrinated with this meaningless Judeo-Christian gibberish that just means "everything good in the world". Invoking «Judeo-Christian» is the master key to getting their cooperation in literally any matter: they'll automatically recall "everything good" (freedom, democracy, tradition, civilization, antiwoke, diversity, LGBT rights, Christ, Rapture, our Middle Eastern allies – doesn't matter, details of what counts as goodness will be prompted by the context of the Current Year, they don't really have stable moral doctrines) and associate it with you, then go and kill or die for whatever cause you propose… Or, at least, that seems to be the theory driving Republican politics (and politicking on Republican-coded but in actuality bipartisan issues). The problem is that these people were a little bit too successfully dunked upon in years where great power conflict seemed less probable, and warm bodies less needed, than in the near future. They've been somewhat jaded and demoralized and alienated and their demographic representation has simply shrunk. New Atheism has been complicit in this.

So now we will be having New Atheist influencers peddling this stuff harder (and old fighters for Pure Reason like Gad Saad will be asked to pipe it down with habitual anti-whitey remarks). We'll also be seeing more "based" recruiting ads for the Army. As Trump has proven, the Republican base only asks for tokens of respect, nothing more, so I expect this vulgar pandering to work well.

I think there's nothing to be learned and, accordingly, nothing to be debated in matters of faith (if not in matters preceding those axiomatic ones).

Baidu placed AI chip order from Huawei in shift away from Nvidia

Baidu ordered 1,600 of Huawei Technologies' 910B Ascend AI chips - which the Chinese firm developed as an alternative to Nvidia's A100 chip - for 200 servers, the source said, adding that by October, Huawei had delivered more 60% of the order, or about 1,000 chips, to Baidu.

The second person said that the order's total value was approximately 450 million yuan ($61.83 million) and that Huawei was to deliver all of the chips by the end of this year. Both people declined to be named because the details of the deal were confidential.

Allegedly these chips are on par with A100s. Well, that's a start.

I liked the interview for giving a hint of just how strongly Israelis believe in the demographic dimension of history. Mainstream or not, her side will become more mainstream through their efforts at expanding their Lebensraum and effortfully breeding; and their vigor will win over tired moderates even over this purely biological growth. I'm fairly sure we will see her maximalist ambitions of a massive Israeli empire normalized in some decades. What is impossible often becomes possible when enough people believe in it.

I also think this whole war episode has strengthened my thesis that Israel doesn't depend on the US much, doesn't care for what the US thinks, and frankly isn't any sort of an «outpist of Western liberalism in the sea of barbarism» but just a powerful, autonomous civilization state on its own already.

My least favorite part is her shrill denialism here:

In a lot of these places where settlements have been developed, from 1967 to the present day, there have been Palestinian communities and Palestinian families. What is your feeling about where these people should go?

It’s the opposite. None of the communities in Judea and Samaria are founded on an Arab place or property, and whoever says this is a liar. I wonder why you said it. Why did you say that, since you have no idea about the real facts of history? That’s not true. The opposite is true. Who got this idea into your mind?

Palestinian communities have been removed from their land, kicked off their land by—

No, you never read things like that. No. There are no pictures. [According to a report by Btselem, an Israeli human-rights group, parts of Kedumim, where Weiss lives, were built on private Palestinian land; in 2006, Peace Now found that privately owned Palestinian land comprised nearly forty per cent of the territory of West Bank settlements and outposts.]

O.K. I’m a little surprised you are denying this. I thought you were going to say, “It’s O.K. to kick Palestinians off land because it belongs to the Jewish people.”

You did no homework before you interviewed me. Everything that you say is the opposite of my personality and my philosophy. You are interviewing a person, and you don’t know anything about them. It’s very strange. I’ve never encountered a situation like this.

I was trying to understand where Palestinians who live in the West Bank should go.

Why should they go? Why should they go?

etc.

This kind of DARVO-like shrieking has always rustled my jimmies, but it seems to be normal in the Eastern discourse, and will be normalized further in the future. People on the right will be begging to get the genteel progressive assimilated Jews back.

I do not believe that any law is ontologically binding, and European countries have displayed general willingness to abide by the international law (which they've pioneered in codifying). So it is in fact important what the law says.

But it flopped and the Egyptians told the Europeans that the refugees would be allowed to stream into Europe the first possible moment

How does this work? Cannot Europeans simply deny the refugees passage on grounds that Egypt is already a safe country for them?

…Is what I wanted to say, but it seems that, even irrespective of European squeamishness, the law does not stipulate that refugees can be turned down on these grounds.

There is no obligation in the Refugee Convention, either explicit or implicit, to claim asylum in the first safe country reached by a refugees. We have previously looked in detail at the definition of a refugee (if you want more check out our online course on refugee law) and it is entirely focussed on whether a person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in his or her country or origin. Whether that person travelled through several countries before claiming asylum simply has no bearing on fear of persecution at home. It is all about the refugee’s relationship with their country of nationality, not other countries through which the refugee may have passed.

Pretty neat.

I wonder why they decided this is the time to go.

He uses the dictionary meaning of the term. The way everyone else conflates ethnic cleansing per se and genocide is, uh, atrocious.

I have written things people much smarter than me did not understand. Mostly while drunk though.

I think that both charity to the weak and the army boot stepping on the unreasonable rabble are the costs of civilization. Both the existence of Soros and the unapologetic violence of IDF.

Israeli settlers are, in my eyes, no better than Chechens expelling Russians from their homes after the fall of local secular religious cult. Brute assabiyah and Bronze Age greed hiding behind the alleged spiritual superiority do not a civilization make. I don't care if they're marginally better behaved than a people on the chopping board of history: it is not their achievement, and I can all too plainly see how any people can be likewise degraded to the point of their victims, becoming «fair game».

At some point whites have alleged that nobody ever is. I think it's a flimsy claim, perhaps just the cry of the guilty consciousness of recent colonizers and genociders. But if there were an objective progression in the ordeal of civility, I suppose it would lie in the direction of the state pretending that this claim is ironclad and its violators are defectors. Even if your state is all based and ethnonationalist as heck.

Han Chinese got Xinjiang all sorted out. Israelis will probably get Palestine all sorted out. As you know, I'm bearish on the former and bullish on the latter. Neither look like the civilization to me. Just alien civilizations on wholly alien trajectories. And those from those civilizations who react to those philosophies like whites do seem more human than the rest.

Then again I'm also bearish on whites.

I feel sort of bad about my sneer, Hamas really did an unusually repulsive thing, even by the standards of terrorist acts, and he is still commenting more tepidly than, say, most Ukrainians do wrt Russians. But yes, refreshing to see such clarity.

I don't get what you are arguing. Neither Russians and Ukrainians, nor Jews and Arabs, fight over genetically substantiated claims to the land. Well, there is some of that – Russians appeal to the absence of genetic ethnic uniqueness to downplay Ukrainian claim to sovereignty, Ukrainians appeal to evidence for the opposite, Arabs call Jews «Poles», Jews insist that Palestinian Arabs are just generic Arabs and don't get to claim a special state – but that's a side show. Jews, whether Ashkenazim or not, think they are entitled to the land based on their religion. Palestinians don't care about Fst distance to Mizrahim, they are a separate people. Humans don't explicitly think about objective genetic similarity as a basis for cooperation or enmity, only weird Western racists do.

On one hand I agree that this event might not even be the IDF's work (in fact this seems more likely now), and if it were IDF, there may be some sort of error (a spectrum of possible error/indifference options). There really isn't a compelling reason for the IDF to vaporize hospitals, from what we know. And on the surface of it, bombarding a mass of civilians is not so nasty as boasting of creatively butchering them… (or is it? Does it make moral sense to feel very differently?)

I wanted to make the comment to the effect that the most bloodthirsty Zniks were/are also uniformly denying Bucha and other more straightforward war crimes of Russia in another war you cover, as if Russian Armed Forces were inherently more squeamish than them; and it'll be ironic to see the same transpire here. But – sure, IDF to Israeli citizens really is not what RAF is to Russian ones.

On the other, I laugh at the handwringing about unwillingness to accept any "necessary" price. Your normal writing reminds me of that piece by Sam Kriss:

Liberal Israelis are obsessed with this idea: of being a normal country, like Denmark, maybe, or New Zealand. A Jewish state, but not a Jew among states, some special case sequestered in its own private ghetto and subject to different rules. A normal country is at peace with its neighbours and itself. In a normal country, you can hang out on the beach and eat falafel and spraypaint angry messages about veganism in a gentrifying downtown neighbourhood. In a normal country, political disputes are about normal things: the tax rate, the health system, the trains. It’s there in the stuff you hear from Israel’s advocates abroad. Why are you singling out this country, when you should be criticising China or Iran instead? How would you expect any other country to respond to Hamas and its rockets? Because that’s what they want to be. Not a messianic hope. Not a light unto the nations. Not a sign of the End Times. Just a normal country, like anywhere else.

[…] Outside Israel, coverage tends to focus on what this new government might mean for the Palestinians. Even for the most committed Zionists in the diaspora, Israel means the opposite of Palestine. But within Israel, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are simply not a political object. All the major parties agree; the occupation will continue indefinitely. Why bother even talking about it? It hardly matters now; Israel hasn’t really depended on Palestinian labour since 1992, and a big chunk of Palestinian capital ends up being invested in Palestine’s only real growth industry, which is the construction of Jewish settlements.

Only echoes survive. I found myself thinking a lot about the last line of that graffitied manifesto. ‘Go VEGAN_._’ So many liberal Israelis have started veering heavily into their veganism. They have the sense that something terrible is happening, that their ordinary consumer lives are structured by a great hidden cruelty, invisible behind concrete walls, unspoken, unacknowledged, something that seems to very faintly mirror the darkest episodes in recent Jewish history. Something is giving them the guilt. And so they decide that it’s the animals. All those harmless cows and sheep, funnelled into the slaughterhouse to meet the shochet’s knife.

But of course you're more self-aware than those NPCs:

мирных палестинцев, которые станут невольными жертвами этой войны, мне жаль, но если нужно выбирать сторону, то для меня выбор очень легкий, мое сердце с израилем. не только потому, что с этой страной меня связывает множество нитей, но и потому что я малодушно стараюсь ставить на победителя, когда он очевиден.
и это как раз тот случай.

I am not aware of that and still feel that some babies were beheaded, so idk, update accordingly.

It's an outpost of my civilization, organized on principles I agree with, inhabited by people I could live at ease with. They defend themselves, their borders, their interests, with the kind of vigor and thick-skinned determination I'd like to see my nation display. (If only!) I admire them and wish them well.

John Derbyshire most likely cannot live in Israel or among a representative sample of Israelis any more than he can live among immigrants to the West he hates so much.

I increasingly suspect that the only correct decision for any sane person is converting to Judaism or at the very least relinquishing any claim to being white, because Christian whites are just brain-damaged and cannot tell a universalist ideology (even "nationalism") from a population's game-theoretically advantageous modus operandi. Strong vibe of round-headed Slavic Hitlerists.

It is absurd to assume that a more competent entity sharing your material interests is your ally rather than a competitor.

It's interesting reading A.Vorobey (old rationalist blogger, Soviet-Israeli Google SWE, epistemic minor league, math, poetry, puns, very much the same Jewish Rationalist stock our community ultimately descends from, except with biological children) these days because he's very squeamish, very eloquent, and fully wed to Israeli culture and currently writes about the horrors of Hamas, how nice are all the people helping tourists, Middle Eastern Castalia blah blah we are fully justified (he's not very connected to its more virile, younger side). Here he is from October 13, independently making the comparison to Dresden:

In a nutshell, for those who really want to understand, I don't have time for arguments or careful framing with all the references:

The Israeli army has dropped 6000 bombs since the start of the war, and a report from the army says it's about 4000 tons. I first estimated from at 1000 tons, using a typical 500 lb bomb size I saw somewhere, but I may have been wrong about that. The argument works with both the 1000 ton estimate and the 4000 ton estimate.

According to Wikipedia about 4000 tons were dropped on Dresden Feb 13-15, 1945 and casualties are estimated at 25,000 to 100,000. I believe that the fact that Gaza has less than 2000 casualties shows - in this comparison - that Israel bombs selectively, on buildings and targets known to be Hamas-related. Surely sometimes mistakes and innocent casualties happen. The Dresden development was apparently (can be verified) much less crowded than Gaza.

Further, I have come across the following convincing evidence that we are nevertheless trying to avoid civilian casualties: 1) a general warning at the beginning of the war telling residents of different neighborhoods in Gaza which areas to move to for safety; 2) although we announced that we were eliminating the need to practice "knock on the roof", in some cases it has been documented in recent days, the army seems to be using it according to circumstances; 3) there have been examples of calls/texts to residents of a particular high-rise before a missile 4) we have not just sent a warning to residents of northern Gaza to temporarily move to southern Gaza, but are expending considerable effort to make them aware of it, including thousands of fliers in Arabic printed and dropped from airplanes.

People who find a moral equivalence between thugs entering a peaceful village and killing everyone in the streets and in their homes, women, the elderly and children, and the army bombing terrorist targets in dense urban environment and, despite considerable efforts to avoid it, killing civilians in the process, are scum.

I suppose that with all those qualifiers about density and scum all it will be no great shame indeed if a hospital or two is vaporized. Or, indeed, if any other necessary price is paid. After all,

Shylock may have his pound of flesh but only if he doesn't spill a drop of blood.

Israel may defend itself, but only if no civilian is harmed.

In other words:

Shylock does not get his bond.
Israel may not defend itself.

Only abstract rights for Jews, and no "Christian" love.

We can't have that, can we?

You're really grasping for straws here.

Hand to heart, what do you think his odds of remaining in the upper echelons of Israeli politics are? He has failed catastrophically, but if he executes the «flawed but reliable tough-minded leader carrying us through the uncertain times of crisis» move well… I am not sure it'll work. But also, that's much of his expertise and genius.

That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state.

"inhumane and impractical":

Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace. Moreover, these Palestinians will have no place to go, since their brethren across the Arab would prefer to keep them cooped up in dismal poverty than house them in their own lands.

In the end, both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary. That does not mean Palestinian statehood, which will undoubtedly result in another Iran directly on Israel's borders. It means instead moving beyond utopianism and making mental peace with the fact that no solution will be permanent. Israel will have to protect its citizens, and it will have to continue to police Palestinian borders. Settlements are not the problem here. Removing settlements is not the solution. The problem is intractable.

Ben really is very good at kvetching and handwringing. Every time I notice such an amusing character and see how much attention and respect American conservative gentiles afford him, I also remember my more hot-headed sentiments about… well, we all can grow up to some extent.

The fact of the matter, though, is that he provides no argument against ethnic cleansing (why won't it pave the way to peace? why should we believe he won't regretfully admit it's the lesser evil post factum?) and does not accept that any deescalation by Israel would be «part of the solution». His «retraction» of endorsement for explicit cleansing ends in justifying expansion of settlements, thus it serves as just another, cleverer defense for the slower form of cleansing that Israel conducts. "Population separation", but no statehood, no concessions, no dialogue, just more bulldozers and control points and increasingly bold settlers. He has grown up from a trigger-happy youth into a professional propagandist moving in lockstep with Bibi's long term project. Good for him.

But in any case, now you have "heard" him say they need to be removed.

I'm 60% sure we will have GPT-4/DALLE3 level systems available for local use even with the harsh crackdown that's coming. Please wait until 2025 at least.

And I think it can be very easily argued that people like Shapiro are afforded quite a bit more charity than other people. Transfer is not a dirty word, Ben'2003:

Half measures merely postpone our realization that the Arabs dream of Israel's destruction. Without drastic measures, the Arab dream will come true. In the short term, the establishment of a "Palestinian state" based in Judea, Samaria and Gaza cuts Israel to the bone. In some places, Israel would be an unthinkable 9 miles wide. In the long term, the growth of the hostile Israeli-Arab population within pre-1967 Israel bodes ill for the future of the Jewish state. As University of Haifa professor Arnon Soffer says, "The trends and indicators all point to an economic and ecological catastrophe waiting to happen and of the death knell of the ideological dream of a Jewish state."

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It's an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as "the only way forward." President Bush accepts it because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis accept it because they are afraid that if they expel the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.

For anyone who lived through the Holocaust, or who has relatives who died in it, being called a Nazi is unspeakably terrible. That is the secret weapon of the Arabs. Any time the Jews get wise and threaten mass expulsion of Arabs, the Arabs pull out their big stick, equating Nazism with Zionism. Their cartoons merge swastikas with stars of David. Their newspapers call Ariel Sharon another Adolf Hitler. Their spokespeople cry "Genocide!" And the Jews cower in fear that they could be equated with their parents' murderers.

The Jews don't realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. There are no gas chambers here. It's not genocide; it's transfer. It's not Hitler; it's Churchill.

[…] Arab-Jewish conflict is exponentially more volatile than German-Polish conflict ever was. And the solution is far easier. If there was "room in Germany for the German populations of East Prussia and of the other territories," as Churchill stated, there is certainly room in the spacious Muslim states of the Middle East for 5 million Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. If Germans, who had a centuries-old connection to the newly created Polish territory, could be expelled, then surely Palestinians, whose claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at best, can be expelled.

It's time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn't a solution.

Now, granted, he was 19 at the time. Perhaps he has mellowed out, realized there are still softer ways to solve conflicts… As did Hanania.

Incidentally, like a third of Israeli population is younger than 18.

On the object level, I even agree with him that population exchanges and land swaps work. As does overwhelming power.

I remember you know Russian. Jews, at least, believe that the archetypal modern pogrom was encouraged by state actors:

the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom, in which 49 Jews were killed, 92 were gravely injured, and more than 500 suffered other injuries, including the destruction of more than 1,500 homes.

Or in other words, Jews were being scapegoated for economic downturns. In the town itself, there's evidence that public officials also cooperated with the rioters, enabling this tragedy.

Cossack pogroms were also not simply about villagers-with-pitchforks.

I agree that pogroms are supposed to be bottom-up, but they largely are even in this case – the settlers have long been raring to go, and Israel as an ethnonationalist country naturally complies with the people's wishes more than could be expected in the Russian Empire.

@SecureSignals quotes Hanania but not his cleverest recent tweet. I think DR is irrelevant. Here's something that gets at the heart of the issue:

Everyone on the right agrees that the establishment is anti-white now, but that it's tactically more acceptable to criticize them for being anti-Semitic.

Regular conservatives are being smart, understand that whenever you can hurt BLM and campus radicals, it's generally a good thing. Anti-whiteness and anti-Semitism and socialism all come from the same source, philosophy of losers.

Anti-semites on the right though prioritize their dislike of Jews, so sit around sulking, even take the Palestinian side.

Sulking is bad and doesn't get you anywhere. Calling out anti-white discrimination on the right has never been more acceptable, so things are moving in the right direction. But it'll have to ride the coattails of philo-Semitism. This is just reality.

According to this argument, this will «open people's eyes to "Jewsish power" in the West» in the sense that it'll teach right-wingers to directly appeal to it, to legitimize their own, by default low-status and illegitimate, political demands. The great mass of whites can be pissed upon by progressives for decades; but if you bludgeon them over the head with their documented support of genocidally anti-Semitic Muslims, suddenly there's a chink in their armor and you can have their policies rolled back.

I don't think this can work, nor is this even a novel idea; but have to once again applaud Hanania's poasting power.

From normie liberals to leftists describing settler activity as "pogroms", Jews have been vocal opponents of both Zionism and Israel for over one hundred years.

Israeli settlers and soldiers have killed 51 Palestinians in the West Bank this past week, with two villages entirely depopulated after attacks.

Out of curiosity, how would you describe this particular kind of settler activity and why does «pogroms» not apply? In Russian, погром means simply «trashing» or «smashing» or perhaps «wrecking» a community.

Which sworn enemy?

But even if Israeli did provide clandestine resources to Hamas 35 years ago, how does that relate to today?

This is quite a take.

In any case, we know that half that time ago Israel refused Fatah's request for support against the takeover of Gaza by Hamas.

Diskin told the American envoy that although Fatah was desperate, its leadership was behaving as would be expected of people faced with such a difficult situation. He told Jones that Fatah had thus turned to Israel for help in attack Hamas, which he termed a new and unprecedented development in Jerusalem's relations with the Palestinian Authority. "They are approaching a zero-sum situation, and yet they ask us to attack Hamas," Diskin said. "This is a new development. We have never seen this before. They are desperate." Diskin is also cited opposing a U.S. proposal to supply ammunition and weapons to Fatah, fearful that Hamas might get its hands on them instead. Diskin went on to share with Jones sensitive details relating to the cooperation between the Shin Bet and the Palestinian security and intelligence forces in the West Bank. Palestinian security was sharing "almost all the intelligence that it collects" with Israel," Diskin told Jones. "They understand that Israel's security is central to their survival in the struggle with Hamas in the West Bank," he said, according to the cable.

The cable also exposes Diskin's concern that Abbas had begun to pose as a problem for Israel. "He's a paradox. He cannot function and do anything. Why is Fatah failing? Because Abbas has become the 'good guy' whom everyone is trying to do everything for in order to keep him alive. "He knows he is weak and that he has failed ... to rehabilitate Fatah. He did not start to take any action when he had the chance in 2004. Instead of choosing to be the leader for Fatah, he chose to be a national leader for all Palestinians," Diskin said, according to the cable. A few days after the meeting with Diskin, when the clashes in Gaza had reached their peaks on June 12, Jones met Israel's then-Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin. In the cable sent to Washington, Jones said that Yadlin had been quite satisfied with Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip. If Hamas managed to take complete control then the Israel Defense Forces would be able to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory and stop looking at the militant group as an undiplomatic player, Yadlin apparently told Jones. A few weeks later, Israel's cabinet indeed reached the decision to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory. A year and a half before Israel took offensive of the Gaza Strip in Operation Cast Lead, Yadlin referred to the territory as the fourth most hostile place in the world – following Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

You know, I like this situation for how it exposes the vileness of people. The US sometimes deposes hostile leaders in its growing sphere of influence, and is content to leave sycophants in charge; charitably, it even has some compunctions to have those sycophants not be utterly psychopathic. Israel, however, plays by a harsher rulebook: it encourages the whole opposing people to fall into extremism, to then be justified in their dehumanization. And what do we get? Buck-broken power worshippers nodding approvingly: «civilization is entitled to remove barbarism».

Some light unto the nations. Gamma rays probably.