sulla
2d ago
He is not engaging in causal analysis at all, he is criticizing Ukrainian leadership for not making a deal. This is literally his next sentence. Trump is not a guy who speaks precisely, you can’t read so deeply into his throwaway comments.
sulla
2d ago
If it will empower a Democrat president, the Democrat president could have just passed a similar order. Not a big deal.
sulla
2d ago
Do American on The Motte feel that the country is generally in favour of breaking from its old European alliances?
Not at all. We just want Europe to get its shit together, economically, culturally, and its military. Europe is like the burnout older brother who was once promising but now lives with your parents, spends all day in the bar, and has threesomes in his childhood bedroom with hideous women. And worse, he thinks this makes him cultured.
I perceive Europe as completely unable to innovate, unable to produce good art, and unable to defend itself. It’s so pathetic it’s not capable of being a threat. There is at most some hope that Trump can give Europe a kick in the ass and make Europe at least “get a job.”
This is all vibes based of course. There are some more concrete complaints about EU overregulation, but I would say many American conservatives feel great contempt towards Europe.
sulla
22d ago
I have more to say about Ziz's horrible decision theory framework. From zizians.info:
The theoretical basis for Zizian social conduct is Yudkowsky and Soare's "functional decision theory". "Functional decision theory" is designed as an answer to Newcomb-like problems where the actions of others are conditional on which decision theory an agent uses. In normal English, it's about situations where the environment will change depending on who you are. The classic example is a choice between two boxes full of money. The first box has much more money in it but only if you're the sort of person who will take that box and leave the other behind. Functional decision theory says the solution to this problem is to choose a strategy which responds to this situation by only taking the first box. It asserts an acausal theory of decisions, where you do not make choices between outcomes but choices between strategies. Instead of saying "now that I'm here I'll take both boxes" an FDT agent says "I know I only get to be here if I one box; so I'll one box".
In Zizian thought this concept is expanded to justify behavior that would make a Sovereign Citizen blush. Zizians do not think it is ever valid to surrender. The reasoning goes that if someone is trying to extract a surrender from you, giving in is choosing a strategy that gets coerced into surrender. If you fight bitterly you prevent the coercion in the first place by making it too costly to fight you. (Associated phrases: "nosell"; "collapse the timeline";)
It is superficially compelling, however, everyone can sense that something is not quite right about the argument, and it's this (among other problems) - For functional decision theory to work, it has to be possible for other parties to infer your strategy/"policy". In Newcomb's paradox, Omega is capable of inferring your strategy through advanced technology or magic. In the real world, other people have to guess based on your words or actions.
So option one is to make a verbal commitment: "If you cross me in any way, I'll kill you!" But there are some problems:
- Problem 1: They don't know what you mean by "crossing you," so you have to get more specifically. Maybe "crossing you" means "making you pay rent" (as was apparently the case). So you're going to have to be more specific: "If you make me pay rent, I'll kill you!"
- Problem 2: That's illegal, and will earn you at least a restraining order. So you have to stay vague, but if you're vague, then they will not know your strategy.
- Problem 3: Almost nobody uses the "never surrender" strategy, and for the most part, if somebody tells you they are using this strategy, they are lying or exaggerating. Especially if they are keeping it vague.
So your own real option in action - That's right, for somebody to be convinced that you will kill them, you're going to have to kill someone else first. But we face the same basic problems as above:
- Problem 1: If you kill somebody, but keep it secret, then other people still won't know that your strategy is murder. So you are going to have to do it openly.
- Problem 2: If you kill somebody openly, you are going to jail, and you will not have the resources to retaliate against the entire government.
So you are still screwed. Either you keep your strategy a secret, so nobody believes you and crosses you anyway, or you exercise your strategy openly and go to jail (or get killed in retaliation by someone else).
If you are still committed to this strategy, you are essentially forced to live the life of a mob boss: Other people kill and take the fall on your behalf, and even though everyone knows it was you, it can't quite be proven in a court of law that you were responsible. It is a precarious situation to be in, to say the least. Maybe Ziz is in this zone now, but it doesn't seem to going very well.
Lastly, even if somehow you execute the above perfectly, you still have the problem that nobody sane will want to associate with you. Most people actually don't want to be around people that will murder them if they make a mistake that is perceived as a slight.
sulla
23d ago
Ziz is like a real life Light Yagami, except instead of punishing criminals he murders everyone who doesn’t support trans vegan communism, and instead of having an all-powerful Death Note he had three trans friends with a fake samurai sword, and instead of being Japan’s top student he’s an internet schizo.
His game theory is retarded. Five trans cultists aren’t going to successfully terrorize hundred of millions of landlords into giving tenants free rent, or 7 billion people into becoming vegans, or whatever. They aren’t going to respect and fear the almighty Ziz for his game theoretic commitment to murder, they’re simply going to call the police, or simply shoot him and his companions. Even having a game theoretic commitment to murdering anyone who slights you will mean that only psychotic people are even willing to hang around you, and greatly increases your chances of ending up murdered or imprisoned.
Parvini is a true radical who wants the system and the established elite gone, so he's long bet that Trump's return would herald "the woke being put away" and "back to fresh prince".
This is the crux of it. “The regime” acting sane and governing well (or at least incrementally better) is actually an L because governing well is better for the regime in the long run and helps maintain its stability. He would probably insist the regime wanted Caesar and Pompey was a jobber.
sulla
29d ago
Not only is Elon Musk not a Nazi, but nobody is Nazis. It was a mid century German nationalist movement. It has no connections to the right in America 80+ years later, and there is no reason that anyone would seek to emulate them at this point. They are just the losing side of a conflict in a long list of losing sides in history.
Even if you are “racist” and support “authoritarian” ideas, so were, idk, probably most governments in history. What is the connection to mid century Germans? “The left” obviously wants to call people Nazis to score political points, but it makes no longer makes any sense even from a far right perspective.
sulla
1mo ago
It's too late to undo the preemptive pardons of the past, but we should prevent future ones.
Not really, the SC hasn’t ruled on preemptive pardons, and nor will they ever unless somebody who was preemptively pardoned is charged, because that is the only way someone would have standing. And nobody cares about Nixon anymore.
sulla
1mo ago
I think it was a good move. It sends a message. Anyone who committed real crimes still spent 3-4 years in prison. That is more than if you had done the same thing in a bar, even for the worst offenders.
sulla
1mo ago
In my region, every Starbucks I went to was not filled with homeless people, and was still a reasonable but overpriced place to hang out. I’m guessing this was more a problem in cities. My prediction is that they will recover, although at this point they are far too big and old of a chain to ever be “cool” again.
sulla
1mo ago
Is it really brain dead though? Zelenskyy is to all apperances correct that Putin's position in 2024 is analogous to Hitler's in 1938, complete with appeals to anschlaus and rightful dominion over all German Russian Speaking peoples.
I think it is a completely unreasonable position to say that if there is a border war between a larger state and smaller state, and the area under question contains people who have historical connections to the larger state, then the leader of the larger state = Hitler. This must have happened a million times across history, and almost every time the leader was somebody other than Hitler.
sulla
1mo ago
There is already a thread on this, but I wanted to continue the discussion regarding the Lex/Zelenskyy interview. The other thread is mainly focused on Lex's language choice, and Lex's skills as an interviewer. I'm not very interested in this whole debate - it is pointless internet drama, and a modern form of celebrity worship. It's very disappointing that most people's takeaway "yay Lex" or "boo Lex" and not anything even slightly relevant to the actual war that is taking place.
My takeaway from the interview was that I think much less of Zelenskyy. This was his chance to explain the war from Ukraine's perspective, and the best he could come up with was a braindead "Putin = Hitler" take. People who rely on the "X = Hitler" argument are currently on a losing streak, and I am now more convinced than ever that Zelenskyy will continue that losing streak. I completely agree with Lex that if Zelenskyy believes that Putin is some mutant combination of Hitler and Stalin, yet somehow worse than both, compromise is not on the table. Zelenskyy dies or is forced into exile, or Putin dies or is forced into exile. In spite of biased media coverage in the West that only highlights Ukraine's successes and Russian setbacks, it's pretty clear at this point that if the status quo continues, Ukraine will lose a war of attrition first.
Zelenskyy could have tried to explain why Putin's narrative on the 2014 coup, or the ensuing War in Donbas, is incorrect. Instead, in 3 hours I don't remember him discussing Donbas even once. Maybe this is partially on Lex for not driving home the specifics. While Zelenskyy did not have time to address the core premise of the entire war, he did have time to engage in some psychotic rambling about how Putin would conquer all of Europe.
Maybe Zelenskyy is actually more reasonable in his private views, and he is simply running an outdated propaganda playbook that would have worked in the 1940's, or even the 2000's. But in today's age of high information availability, more subtlety is required. Even if you can convince the average person with a braindead argument like "Putin = Hitler", there will always be a subset of more intelligent people who demand a real argument. Since the more intelligent people tend to have out-sized influence, if you fail to offer them anything, they will not truly support you, or may even undermine you. If you are an intelligent person who doesn't really know much about the war, Zelenskyy offered nothing of substance. "Putin = Hitler" is not substance.
Maybe one possibility is that the two sides of the war are actually:
- The war is about the 2014 coup and the ensuing War in Donbas.
- The war is about Putin = Hitler.
If these are the options, I'm afraid I have no choice but to take Russia's side. The coup and the War in Donbas, at minimum, happened and were upsetting to Russia, and it is not even remotely outside of the historical norm for such situations to eventually escalate into a full-blown war. On the other hand, 2 is a merely deflection of 1 - not a real argument, just a poor attempt at psychologizing why Putin's motivations aren't his stated motivations, which at least described by Putin are quite logical, but actually just that he is secretly Hitler for some reason. If there is an alternative version of 2, that actually addresses 1, I am certainly open to it.
which at least described by Putin are quite logical
hahahahahahahah
This has been my experience with trying to talk to Ukraine supporters so far. It's basically how Zelenskyy talked to Lex as well. They do not seem to be able to form a coherent argument; instead they simply attempt to mock anybody who wants to hear someone address Russia's arguments directly from a pro-Ukraine perspective. Trying to shame people into supporting Ukraine, without actually addressing Russia's rationale for invading, is not going to work.
I believe that the reason Ukraine supporters refuse to address the history of the war is that the entire situation becomes more complex in a way that is unhelpful to their cause. Under certain ethical frames, even under Putin's assertions, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is still unquestionably wrong. However, to even make this observation, you admit that there is a question of ethical frame and values. Under some frames, Putin has some reasonable argument, assuming the facts are true. Some commentary has compared him to a "20th century statesman" in how he thinks about things. However, then you have a more difficult task of either refuting the facts or challenging the moral frame. Better then, to simply say "Putin = Hitler, anyone who doesn't agree with my ethical frame is a pyscho maniac murder," and avoid the conversation altogether. I understand this rationale, but I think it is the wrong approach for 2025, and it is certainly not any basis for negotiating an end to the war.
Trump wants to make peace, but it certainly appears that Zelenskyy is not open to it. He did talk about security guarantees - I think this is reasonable, depending on the specifics of the guarantees. Maybe even NATO membership. But he has to let go of the idea that he will get all of the land back. There is no universe in which the Putin regime stays and power and this happens, unless Ukraine achieves some military miracle. At an absolute minimum, the eastern Donbas is gone.
Where does this leave Trump? Obviously he is going to threaten Zelenskyy in various ways, such as threatening to completely ban the export of weapons to Ukraine, sanctions on Ukraine, sanctions on anyone who continues to support Ukraine until Zelenskyy is willing to come to the negotiating table, etc.. This is my prediction for how the war ends: Trump threatens Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy eventually gives in and negotiates, Russia gets some of the land, and Ukraine gets security guarantees backed by the US. The devil will be in the details, of course.
If you're such an expert on Russia, why don't you address XYZ...
I am not, I am merely a casually observer who spends too much time online, and I am happy to hear your takes on XYZ. I'm not pro-Russia, I am just anti-terrible discourse, and the pro-Ukrainian discourse that I have observed has been horrendously poor. Disappointingly, Zelenskyy continued this. On the other hand, Putin's speeches were highly intellectual and several levels above any speech I have ever heard a Western leader give in terms of sophistication. I am also secure enough in myself that "well if you think that, it proves you're retarded" will not change my view. In the modern information environment, this argument is in fact less effective than ever.
sulla
1mo ago
It almost makes you wonder if the genie stories were political commentary to begin with.
sulla
1mo ago
I suppose trading human utils for dog utils is “anti-human” in some literal sense because dogs are not humans. This does not make it unnatural or wrong, however.
This idea that “1 util of annoyance for me is worth more than 1,000,000 utils of your dog’s happiness” is actually kind of what I find off-putting about dog haters. Not only I disagree on an object level, but it tends to reflect their general mindset towards life. If they can’t even put up with being greeted by a friendly dog, they are likely not going to be an easy person to be around.
Even being the type of person who is willing to claim with full confidence that a dog has zero intrinsic worth compared to himself, and is then willing to act on this belief, to me shows a very concerning arrogance and lack of empathy. I just don’t want people like that around me.
sulla
1mo ago
Yes, and probably at a higher exchange rate than most. But more importantly, I value my dog’s utils highly, and many other people feel the same.
sulla
1mo ago
Are dog people convinced that all humans love dogs (except for evil humans) and therefore there ought not be a problem?
I think people who don’t like dogs are neurotic and/or weird, and they tend to have personality traits that I find off-putting.
My question is why.
In general, it comes from a desire to give their dogs better lives. Going to the grocery store is more fun and fulfilling for a dog than being locked in crate.
I don’t support dogs in grocery stores in general, but only because most owners lack skill and judgment, not because of a categorical objection.
sulla
2mo ago
Even if the poor sap is okay with it, many men are quite dissatisfied with taking a high bc woman as a wife. They may do it anyway because they want a wife badly enough. Therefore, these men would benefit from a high bc being disincentivized.
No citation needed. Sleeping with 100 people in a year is a strict superset of sleeping with 100 people in a day. Also… common sense.
sulla
3mo ago
it has failed to live up the hype otherwise, like life extension, replacing workers, or treating disease, imho.
Tesla is all-in on reinforcement learning for their next generation of Optimus robots, but they only spun that team up this summer. When I heard this news the stock price was at like 180 and I bought some calls for 230/250/270 for next June. After some movement I pushed these up to 300. Yet this still looks way too pessimistic. I think some exposure to $500c by the end of next year might be warranted.
sulla
3mo ago
How do I know? I know because I know that my reasoning was solid and strongly supported by the available data.
How do you know that I know? You don’t. But I’m not really here to convince you. I’m here to make fun of Nate Silver for predicting nothing yet declaring victory.
sulla
3mo ago
They try but fundamentally, IMO, it’s a good idea to separate data collection and model building.
sulla
3mo ago
So Nate Silver's problem is that his method is junk. He takes some averages and models them out. The problem is that a lot of the data he relies on is bad.
I’m more sympathetic to the pollsters than I am to Nate. The pollster’s job is to poll people using a reasonable methodology and report the data, not to make predictions. They can’t just arbitrarily add Trump +3 to their sample because they think they didn’t capture enough Trump voters in their samples.
Nate’s job is explicitly to build a model that predicts things. He can legitimately adjust for things like industry polling bias. He doesn’t because he’s bad at his job.
In Ben Franklin's 1729 pamphlet A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency, he observed that true wealth consists of the ability to command labor. This framing positions wealth as almost inherently a positional good. While it is not true exactly, it is true that currently 100 inch flat screen TVs, infinite food, and dishwashers can't replace the benefits of human laborers to do your building. And clearly, it is impossible for everyone to pay others to do more labor in aggregate than they themselves are doing, as the demand would be eternally greater than the supply.
Humanoid robots have the potential to break this bottleneck for the first time in history. The true promise of industrial society - to eliminate the positional nature of wealth - will become a possibility. It will happen gradually, then all-at once. But above all, it is happening soon and 99% of people are not mentally prepared, or are in denial.
More options
Context Copy link