ceilingcorner

Here’s what I’ve learned in the last week or so.

There is a good lecture on YouTube called Why Ukraine is the West’s Fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Mearsheimer, a foreign policy expert of 50+ years, belongs to the “realist” school. I find his viewpoint helpful as it’s very much Machiavellian and not focused on demonizing the Other. I’m not sure how accurate his analysis is, but it seems worth looking at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

The gist is essentially this: - NATO, a Soviet-era military alliance, has continued to expand closer to Russia’s borders. Russia feels threatened by this.

- Russia tried to join NATO in the early 2000s but was rebuffed.

- Russia adamantly opposed including Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, but America didn’t care and pushed for it in 2008.

- The US has largely driven this effort and has dragged the EU and Britain along for the ride.

- The revolution/coup in 2014 (depending on which side you believe, I guess) removed more a neutral / pro-Russian government and put in a Western-focused one. This was followed by the separatism in the Donbas and Russia’s taking of Crimea.

However, note that this lecture was before the recent escalation and Mearsheimer didn’t seem to think that Russia would actually launch a full-scale invasion.

I would also note that he doesn't cover other important issues that are relevant to the conflict, namely:

- The history of Ukraine in the last ±500 years, especially the Khmelnytsky Uprising, Cossacks, Ukrainian states in the aftermath of World War 1, the Holodomor famine in Ukraine, and how some Ukrainians helped the Nazis during WW2. In short, the history of Ukraine itself is very relevant to this conflict. There have always been competing groups in this region and it’s not a new phenomenon.

- The disaster that was Russia in the 90s and (from Russia’s perspective) how the West basically took advantage of Russia instead of helping them. This is one reason why Putin came into power in the first place. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ

- Social changes in the Western world that could be called “wokeness” or “LGBT rights” and the West’s behavior of trying to spread these values. This is interpreted as being anti-traditional by Putin and increasingly China (see the recent bans on feminine men in Chinese media as an example.) Putin mentioned this in a recent speech. You could probably describe this as a reaction to Westernization.

If you care about an open internet, you should be against banning any sort of media, no matter how much The NY Times calls it misinformation.

The relevant comparison here is to other currencies, not to organizations in general, and to the ability and incentive of these controllers to influence the trajectory of the currency.

Two points:

1. 10,000 people controlling 33% is dramatically less control and centralization than the Federal Reserve, which ultimately has about 10 powerful people.

2. These 10,000 people have very little ability and even less incentive to affect the price of Bitcoin. Again, unlike the Fed, which can print money at will and increase inflation.

Now imagine a digital country. What’s the fundamental difference? You’re still interacting with an entity that is far away.

If an organization arose that provided benefits to members in a way similar to actual citizenships, it would likely be competitive and desirable. If this digital country managed to make itself valuable to established states, whether through money, talent, or otherwise, I see no reason why it couldn’t thrive and be comparable to tiny island nations like Vanuatu.

If you are ever accused of something, rightly or wrongly, never accede and never give in.

I don’t think people understand how poor the average person was even a century ago.

I’ll take bad social media over nuclear war, plague, or famine any day.

This is a cultural phenomenon, not a rational one, and has more to do with the West’s lack of a coherent worldview in our post-Christian age. It’s a problem of nihilism.

The “interesting” part is that this, like all scenarios, has evolutionary consequences. People that don’t buy into the climate change = I don’t want kids narrative will out-reproduce and out last those that do. The future isn’t a small society of rationalist childfree vegans, it’s comprised of people that have a lot of kids.

This is how Reddit operates and I am sad to see it taking over Hn too.

It looks to me like an old industry is scared of the new one eating its lunch. The medium is the message and in this case, the medium is the mainstream media.

Quoting Wikipedia:

He declared the intention to pursue an "independent foreign policy", and strengthened relations with China and Russia.[20]

When Assange or Snowden get the Nobel, I’ll believe that the committee cares about a free press.

I’m not even sure to include on such a list, which itself indicates the problem. Probably some inventors and technologists that have reduced fights over resources.

I preferred the old forum style, where even unpopular or strange messages were still placed in chronological order.

Should we ban soda commercials? Obesity kills a lot of people.

Here’s the issue: if your entire value system is based on extending life at any cost to other values, you’ve already lost. Full stop.

This entire thing is one giant flashing sign that says “Modern human beings are scared of everything, even as they live in the safest times ever.”

Historical trends seem to be going in the exact opposite direction. Individualism is sustainable to a certain point, but not when it becomes the default position of a society. All of the countries, belief systems, and ideologies that are succeeding today are running away from individualism. Whether that’s good or bad, is up to you.

We are in for a scary future, enabled by the attitudes in this thread.

* A newspaper of record is a major newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative. It may also refer to a newspaper that has been authorised to publish public or legal notices, thus serving as a newspaper of public record.*

* The New York Times Building in New York City, United States; some meanings of the term "newspaper of record" originated in reference to The New York Times.*

It was once the preeminent newspaper in America.

First sentence of the article is inaccurate. Thiel was a supporter in 2016 but was uncertain in 2020.

Why is The NY Times considered quality journalism, again?