pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
No bio...
User ID: 278
I believe it's what the companies who provide it are calling the thing that they are producing, which seems to be a value-neutral criteria. If they call their product SI, insisting on calling at AI is like insisting on calling "X" "Twitter".
Unless that was directed specifically at a person, I don't see that as the same kind of thing.
Calling someone a "traitor" I would say is ordinary rhetoric, but calling even by implication for execution is not.
To be clear, are you leveling this accusation at me?
The party that won has a lot of radicals that want to see him severely punished, and the party is unlikely to be able to deliver on that promise.
You don't need a federal supermajority to kill a man.
Is this referring to something specific?
Democratic machine-style politics as practiced in NY, CA, and IL, I presume.
I believe the rules the chambers make for themselves are not bills and therefore cannot be vetoed.
I agree AI as an industry will chug along fine after greasing the right palms, but this make me more worried about Musk's prospects specifically. If the populace won't get its datacenter halts and anti-AI regulation, a scapegoat will be needed.
I don't agree at all. Obama was still very popular in 2015 (for a lame duck President) and Clinton was the designated successor for his political juggernaut of a coalition. She had experience in the outgoing admin, national politics, and Presidential administration, and had a huge base of institutional DNC support. Bill was still widely liked. She was at least as well positioned as HW Bush was after Reagan.
He also repels a lot of traditionally centrist demographics like suburban professionals and has likely calcified a massive amount of winnable votes as near-permanent Democrats. And the suburban professionals vote every year.
They had already been lost to the Obama coalition and weren't coming back. Certainly not for Cruz or Rubio.
He called Musk "a traitor to the West" and suggested he should be dealt with the same the Rosenbergs were.
https://www.tmz.com/2026/11/04/scott-galloway-calls-elon-musk-traitor/
Yes and no. Yes, you need an element of coercion. The difference now is that this can probably be achieved completely outside any use of government coercion, just through the cooperation of the organizations and institutions that control media. The appetite for censorship never really went away, and if a relatively small number of organizations agree to coordinate to do it voluntarily, that's all it would take.
Biggest loser in the midterms might be Elon Musk. Not only did his personal expenditures fail to achieve any meaningful result, but his outspoken support of the outparty and high profile makes him an extremely high-value target. His companies are now based mainly in two states controlled by Democrats, who will certainly be under pressure to Do Something, and SpaceX is heavily into AI and datacenters, which lost catastrophically in every ballot measure and is about as popular as AIDS.
In his favor, SpaceX is still indispensible and the other companies provide a lot of jobs and tax revenue that it would be foolish to spurn. But the flipside is that hatred of the man as an avatar of CEO's, AI, datacenters, and conservatives, has taken on a life of its own and you have lots of people like Scott Galloway calling, literally, for blood. I think if Musk is not personally ruined the more radical elements are going to be extremely disappointed to the point of Kirking him.
That doesn't happen if the supermajority party is able to make counterparty operations difficult enough, e.g. by exposing their members to prosecution and targeted political violence.
No, I think any other Republican candidate gets beat in both those elections, though narrowly. Trump boosted Republican voting by low-propensity voters far beyond what it had previously and had major downballot coattails. Given demographic trends, I think it's unlikely any non-populist Republicans can win national elections. ETA: Obviously, if Hillary won the first time, Biden and probably Harris never happens anyways, it would be 8 years of Clinton
Good post. Trump II has been a colossal, pathetic waste of what was really a historic opportunity for the American righ
Unfortunately, that opportunity only existed because of him in the first place, so you can't have one without the other.
??? Vance wasn't VP in 2018...
Sadly, grifting is largely not illegal.
Strategy would probably be to abandon the cities and decamp to the small towns. Work in trades or work remotely. Prioritize effort on local elections over state and national ones. Start grilling.
I'd say Rubio. Lots of experience with national politics even now and has seemed competent.
I think most innovators will stay in the US even if there is more wealth redistribution, as long as there is not so much wealth redistribution that being based in the US becomes less attractive than being based in some place like Dubai or Singapore.
Or China. The U.S. currently has an edge due to the unparallelled easy access to capital financing. Degrade that by attacking capital and redistributing it to consumption, and what exactly does the U.S. have to offer?
Yes, but the question is whether it's also better to be part of an 80% winning coalition than, say, a 40% losing one. That's why there's a threshold effect - if a party becomes minority enough that its chances of ever winning decrease below a threshold, then every rational voter will abandon it and try to effect political change through the dominant party, which further decreases the minority party's chances of ever winning, creating a vicious circle.
I think this applies generally to coalition-building -- if you plan a bank heist, you do not want to bring along extra accomplices who do not increase the probability of success.
The bank is going to be robbed no matter what. The only question is whether you will be part of the crew that gets paid for the job.
Yes, but this claim needs more than just gesturing at the marginal voter theorem. Porkpiehat is right - this can be a completely stable system. You only need to reach the tipping point that people feel they have more influence by voting in the primary than in the general for it to come to pass. The numerous municipal governments with single-party rule show exactly why this works: the real election is the primary. For the general, the winners all go vote for their person and the losers mostly stay home. Importantly, almost nobody votes for the other party in the general, because everyone has already invested all their networking, patronage, and coalition-building efforts in The Party.
There have been, and still are, plenty of nominally democratic states with effectively single-party rule. While I don't think it's probable this happens in an electorate so evenly divided that it swings back and forth every few years, simply stating "no it will not" seems like rank it-can't-happen-here-ism.
- Prev
- Next

Hmm, perhaps I conflated things I read from those companies about superintelligence as a concept vs. superintelligence as a product. If so, mea culpa. I know I can't prove I'm posting in good faith, but I can only ask you not to report my post. I'll edit it ASAP.
More options
Context Copy link