MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
I agree. If a group of transactivists were going up against a group of Republican politicians on a knowledge test of female anatomy and physiology, I would bet on the transactivists. They know exactly what a woman (in the ordinary English sense of the word) is - they just don't know what the word "woman" means.
Yes - everyone knows it's the Catholic. This was conventional wisdom in Protestant countries from the Reformation through to the 1960's. I don't think the reversed version is more accurate.
Perhaps we should exclude the Catholic and the pink-haired SJW and hire only normie-Americans from good families like Edward Snowden and Reality Winner.
There is a reason why the Normans adopted "Earl" (a corruption of the Norse "Jarl") in place of a direct translation of the Norman-French "Comte" when conquering a country with a substantial Anglo-Saxon population familiar with vulgar Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. I would hate for @BurdemsomeCount to end up as an example of why they did this, but I think that post qualifies.
Donald Trump was (probably - it is hard to be sure given how much he lies about his financial status) a billionaire when he announced he was going to fight against elites on behalf of the common man. I find his claim about as plausible as Warren's, but the target audience eat it up in both cases.
FWIW, the anti-super-rich lefties I see have stopped talking about "the 1%" and now talk about "the billionaires" which is a much smaller group. Too many upper-middle-class lefties are worried about the leopards eating their faces, I suppose.
British usage assumes a pyramidal society, so there are more working class people than middle-class people and more lower middle than upper middle. To be considered upper class you traditionally needed to have a social network that includes hereditary peers, so upper-middle class stretches a long way up the income scale. A big 4/MBB/Magic Circle partner would definitely be considered upper-middle class, not upper (unless they were upper for family reasons).
In America, everyone except the underclass and the super-rich considers themselves middle-class. Americans don't generally use the term upper-middle class, but the term middle-class is used by both the people themselves and politicians appealing them to cover everyone from a plumber to a HENRY, and upper-middle class refers to the top echelon of that huge group. Paul Fussell's Class (published 1982 so somewhat out of date, but I am not aware of any book since which attempted to define upper-middle class in the US context) gives doctors, lawyers, small town real estate developers and middle-to-VP level managers at large companies as paradigmatically upper-middle class. Warren's $12 million accumulated over a successful career would be well within the achievable range for those professions, though probably above average.
The only time I have seen the words upper-middle class used seriously in an American political context was to describe the people on incomes of $250k-400k who might or might not benefit from Obama's partial extension of the Bush tax cuts, which is also close to but not in the top 1% and given the rising stock market since the Obama era seems consistent with a net worth reaching $3-12 million today.
The algorithm I use that works in any rich country:
- If you consider doctors the help, you are upper class
- If you consider doctors peers, you are upper-middle class
- If you consider doctors to be social superiors, you are middle-middle or below.
That makes a lot of sense.
I thought the late unlamented Iranian air defences were more Russian than Chinese.
"Close to, but not in, the top 1%" is precisely what upper middle class means.
Also, wealth tends to accumulate over time. So "upper middle class wealth" for a 76-year-old like Warren is a higher dollar amount than it would be for us.
Nukes effectively deter a US invasion, which is a real risk if the neocons return to power, and Iran can see that the US would beat them in a conventional war if the US was willing to accept the cost of victory (i.e. a choice between a prolonged occupation and likely Iraq-style quagmire or a Houthi-on-Hormuz failed state).
The product of two small probabilities (the neocons returning to power, and them being dumb enough to launch a real regime change was against Iran) is even smaller, but I think it is high enough to be worth worrying about, and so did MAGA in 2024 given that "vote Trump so you don't have to fight in neocon Kamala's Iran war" was a winning message with military-age men, so it wouldn't surprise me if the mullahs do.
The founding-era Senate mostly met in secret, with the need to ratify treaties being one of the reasons given.
The Ukrainian drone industry is producing roughly the same amount of usable military power as the c. 80 billion dollars a year Russian defence budget. That is worth a trillion dollars or so on standard DCF assumptions.
HELOCs are a bullet I am willing to swallow. Tax-free consumption out of unrealised capital gains on primary residences is the same mischief as tax-free consumption out of unrealised capital gains on founders' stock, and causes the same social problems in a more distributed way. Protect the middle class with a $100,000 lifetime exemption.
Which is upper-middle-class wealth in a country as rich as America. I don't think there is anything surprising about, or wrong with a successful politician being upper-middle-class.
Given the known political views of the average Silicon Valley techie, it seems completely plausible that a majority of the senior management and top technical talent at Anthropic think "The Trump admin uses AGI to win the future for MAGA chuddery" is one of the bad outcomes we want to avoid, and possibly even worse than "The Red Chinese use AGI to win the future for whatever it is they believe in nowadays". (FWIW, I personally would rather live in the Eternal Chinese Empire of the Hundred Acre Wood than in an American hegemony where either side of the culture war had won a total victory).
If that is an accurate reflection of the political views of the key people at Anthropic, then their behaviour would require no additional explanation.
There are, roughly speaking, three routes to AI doom:
- Yudkowskian paperclipping. AI eats us all, human value is extinguished
- AGI falls into the hands of lawful evil actors like the Red Chinese or the wrong side of the US culture war, and establishes an evil singleton which extinguishes most human value
- AGI is so much more effective in the hands of chaotic evil actors than in the hands of the people defending against them that disgruntled basement-dwellers are able to maliciously destroy most human value out of boredom or misanthropy
Going faster under the supervision of a misaligned US government makes paperclipping and lawful evil dystopia more likely, so the main reason for a safety-conscious AI firm to move fast (to get out ahead of less-safety-conscious firms) is lost if the price of permission to go fast is accepting Trump admin supervision.
Yeah - there was a famous Facebook post by Yudkowsky where he said that he thought 20% of the biological males in his social circle were actually trans, although not all of them had realised yet. Yud isn't an idiot, so I assume that there is indeed a certain level of spergery where 20% of the biological males would troon out with sufficient encouragement.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not support providing this encouragement. At the time, Yudkowsky appeared to.
Then why is only Anthropic targeted and why only foreign nationals?
Even a midwit can tell that the restriction on foreign nationals was a hard ban in practice. I assume that Trump fully intended to ban the models and making it nominally about foreign nationals was a misdirection to fool Trump's own sub-midwit supporters.
A fat, orange, brain damaged clown with leukemia just tore through the military tech they've sold multiple other countries like wet tissue paper.
Right now, the most valuable piece of Chinese military tech is the supply chain for the Russian/Iranian combat drones which fucked up America's shit. The percentage of Chinese (as opposed to Russian) content in the bits of the Iranian military that succeeded seems to me to be higher than in the parts that failed (notably the air defences). Sanctions mean that Iran have been assembling most of their own weapons out of easy-to-smuggle components, so this isn't a simple test of Chinese or Russian tech against the American equivalent.
If the future of warfare is putting weapons on Temu drones, the Chinese are in a very good place. And the Iran war is evidence in favour of the this thesis.
fallen short of the glory of wokeness
I don't think this is an argument about wokeness. This is mostly an argument about strongman vs institutional leadership. You can be a anti-immigration conservative without being a wannabee corrupt dictator - see for example Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Riikka Purra in Finland, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, or 45% of Swiss voters. All these people get called fascists, accurately in the case of Meloni (her party is the institutional successor of Mussolini's Fascist Party), but I haven't heard any of them called mafia dons.
If AI was being developed in Meloni's Italy, I don't know whether Anthropic would attract the banhammer, but I suspect the decision would be based on the actual national security threat and not the kowtowing skills of the CEO or the hair colour of the spokeschick, and I know that whether or not this was the case Meloni would be making a real effort to make it look like it was. Seconding @BurdensomeCount, the same will continue to apply in London whether we have Burnham or Farage as PM.
Fairly obviously, you can also be a wannabee corrupt dictator (or even a successful corrupt dictator, like communists) without being a right-populist. But for whatever reason this hasn't happened in my lifetime in the main Western democracies on a larger scale than a big-city political machine.
I think people who make non-specific complaints about the opposite sex into memes are (mostly unintentionally):
- Encouraging people in so-so marriages to see the negatives in their current situation
- Warning off unmarried people against marriage
and therefore making the world a worse place for the sake of a cheap joke that isn't even funny. I wish they would stop.
Yes, but the anonymous sources with access to the Iranian side and the anonymous sources with access to the US side disagree on what the deal says.
This is exactly what I would expect to see if the deal was going to fall apart at the last moment, or if what we actually have is an incredibly thin deal - probably a 60-day ceasefire and opening of the Straits of Hormuz with essentially everything else TBD.
These comments are especially rich given that, following the Euro 2020(/1) Final in which England lost to Italy on penalties because every black English player who attempted a penalty kick missed while every white player who attempted a penalty kick scored,
To anyone familiar with the history of the England team, criticising a team which reached a major tournament final for going out on penalties is either performative fan grousing or idiocy. Southgate's team did well to make a World Cup semi-final and a Euro final. Going out on penalties after a great run is what the best English teams are supposed to do. (Admittedly against Germany or Portugal and not Italy). The fans are just doing their job by grousing about the men who missed spot-kicks. Southgate especially knows this - he has a special place in this story after his Euro 1996 miss.
Part of the idiocy of English fandom is that we consistently think we can win the World Cup, and then feel hard-done-by when we don't. This time England do have a chance based on rankings, betting odds etc. and anything less than a semi-final slot will be a legitimate disappointment, but ex ante at the time Southgate was appointed anyone who suggested that a World Cup semi-final and two European finals would be a bad haul would have been laughed at. The criticism of Southgate for playing dull, negative football is fair, although I think England are in the place of old-school Italy (we aren't good enough to expect wins and beauty, and the fans prefer wins) than old-school Brazil (for whom winning the World Cup while playing ugly football would be a disappointing result). So is the criticism for turning Euro 2024 into a slog given our piss-easy draw. (The only difficult match was the semi against the Dutch).
Senior estate agents are "hired gun negotiators". (The junior agents who arrange viewings and such like are their minions/apprentices).
M&A bankers are arguably doing the same work with businesses instead of real estate. Again, you are a minion/apprentice until you make MD level when you become a hired gun negotiator.
I remember a video of London-based NY Giants fans singing "You can shove your fucking cheese up your arse" (to the tune of "She'll be coming round the mountain when she comes") before the London Giants-Packers game in 2022 that went viral because this was both more offensive and far more creative than the US norm. It is pretty mild by English football standards.
rugby hooliganism
I would say rugby (at least Union - I don't know enough about League culture because the game isn't really played in southern England) hooliganism is the exception rather than the rule in the UK. I spent several years in Richmond in south-west London. Despite football (in the form of Ted Lasso) putting Richmond on the map, it is very much rugby territory - the "tailgate"-equivalent for England Rugby games happens in Richmond with fans arriving by tube, drinking for a couple of hours, and then taking the shuttle busses run by the (one professional and one semi-professional) local rugby clubs to Twickenham stadium. And being around 10,000 drunk rugby fans feels completely safe.
UK 'football factory' style clubs
I think "English" is correct here. Scotland has a tradition of football hooliganism, but it explicitly sectarian and associated with the Glasgow rivalry between (Irish Catholic) Celtic and (Scottish Protestant) Rangers, rather than the violence-for-violence's-sake of English hooliganism.
- Prev
- Next

Both Tesla and SpaceX bulls are entirely upfront about the fact that you cannot make a bull case for the core businesses of Tesla and SpaceX justify the market cap. The bull case is explicitly that Musk will pivot to a business that doesn't exist yet and make the pivot work because he's Musk.
Stories that have run for Tesla in the past include:
The current story for SpaceX is orbital datacentres, which at least has something to do with the existing assets, but is a lot further from actually existing than Autopilot or Tesla Robotics.
More options
Context Copy link