forgot_again

Exactly.

Not only that, but it's so much easier to misread your opponent and the nature of the game when the dynamics are very high dimensional as they are now. It's not just about tanks or militaries anymore. Information warfare and misinformation campaigns, economic warfare, cyber warfare... When all of these potential channels of conflict exist it's very hard to reduce tension in any one domain without tensions rising in another, which in turn fuels an increase in general tension.

Escalation between the US and China is inevitable.

China is fundamentally opposed to everything the US and Democracies around the world stand for politically. Likewise, the US and friends are fundamentally opposed to everything China stands for politically. There is no Universe in which two diametrically opposed juggernauts do not come into conflict. Conflict is simply inevitable when the stakes are this high and there is no greater power able to force deescalation.

Either China converts to Democracy or the US and friends adopt Chinese style authoritarianism, or one of the two belligerents collapses either on its own in the manner of the Soviet Union, or by force.

There are many sources, if you don't trust me you should search yourself.

Here's one, representative of the general attitude. Voter ID's are discriminatory or pushed with discriminatory intent: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-what-you-need-to-kn_b_9...

This is quite a common claim from the Left in the US. If you do a quick search in Left leaning publications on the issue of voter ID you'll see that stance dominates their discussion of the issue. I agree it's an extraordinary claim, but it's a conspiracy they've latched onto.

You can in fact see a child comment below where someone is commenting that the purpose of such ID is to disenfranchise the poor.

Those are both pretty simple issues to address. Many Democracies around the world use some form of voter ID and we could easily just follow their implementations with some adjustments.

Almost no one thinks of that when they think of lawns. They are admired by many because they are aesthetically pleasing to many, which incidentally is why they were maintained by the aristocrats in the first place.

Who are we to impose our aesthetic sensibilities on others.

That's not really true. The Right is generally united on the point of wanting universal ID. Nothing totalitarian about a nation being able to reliably identify and distinguish its citizens.

Unfortunately the political Left believes that such ID, specifically when used as a means of election security, would lead to discrimination.

Mowers are great. Lawns are great.

What does deprivation mean here?

Early in the outbreak I remember seeing some research that indicated people of Asian descent (East Asian) are genetically predisposed to more severe cases of this coronavirus, something to do with higher expression of the ACE-2 receptor.

We're discussing a recent change in tone, behavior and overall policy. What you're describing is the product of previous administrations working hard to get on (the People's Republic of) China's good side, cozying up to China and trying to integrate it into the Democratic community.

This is now precisely what is changing.

Completely agree.

I believe that we need to reframe the debate around manufacturing from one about jobs to one about national security.

This mentally frees us to fully invest in manufacturing automation, which will neutralize any labor cost advantages China and other countries may have.

The movement to bring supply chains back to the US, or at the very least out of China, is far bigger than Trump.

I guess this might sound unreal, but I literally have not looked at AAA game graphics in over 10 years, so this looks absolutely stunning.

Back in 2009 my 360 died. I had been an avid console gamer before that, but I never replaced the Xbox and in 2010 went off to college, where I mainly played N64 with friends as well as games on my phone.

After I graduated I was busy with work and life and never got back into the gaming cutting edge. Sure I played StarCraft once in a while for old times' sake as well as different old Total War games cause they're awesome, but never the sort of major AAA release I used to play all the time as a kid.

I also never really looked at modern graphics since I didn't have friends who played modern games and never watched videos showcasing what games looked like.

So coming from 2009, this is absurdly good.

>"What pathetic nonsense. They feel threatened by western aggression. Stop with the propaganda bullshit. They aren't threatend by "democracy" and "personal liberty". They are threatened by people hiding behind "democracy" and "personal liberty" to attack and destabilize them."

The CCP is indeed existentially threatened by freedom and liberty because their absolute rule is predicted on its antithesis. Open your eyes, friend.

But there is physical law (Newton's First Law) that implies without sufficient checks and balances systems ultimately become dominated by a single force.

Regardless, I and many other Americans like our system, so why should we allow to it be threatened by a power hostile to it.

Did you not read the comment? Saying it's "nationalistic rage" frames it as something petty and superficial.

How is liberty vs fascism petty or superficial? It's not.

Regardless, outside of their ruling ideology their rise doesn't make me angry any more than an athlete's strongest competition makes him angry.

There are real, tangible benefits to being on top and there's no reason to give that up. This is a calmly calculated recognition.

Yup, the current administration is doing a fine job. Addressing concrete issues America faces on many fronts.

1) There are many ways to lower costs to make US chips competitive.

2) That's simply false.

3) Regulations can be dealt with. This current administration seems quite willing to do away with them.

4) The median age in China is 38 years too. This is an irrelevant point.

5) Rare talent needed for chip manufacturing will still be able to come in even with updated immigration rules.

6) See point 1. Also things are more complicated than that.

7) This makes no sense.

8) Subsidies and advanced automation will help here.

Respectfully, there are a great many things wrong with the opinions in this post. I'll try to address them all with as few words as possible.

Chip self reliance is a good thing from a general geo-political standpoint, regardless of China.

China's aggression manifests in many covert operations, mainly information warfare.

The ruling CCP is diametrically opposed to most Western political and social values and itself feels very threatened by democracy and personal liberty. As such it is working very hard to destabilize the West and expand it's hard and soft power to export its authoritarian model around the world.

The end of the American "empire" is hardly guaranteed to happen any time soon, and while some weak willed and naive pseudo-intellectuals may be willing or even eager to roll over and let it die, many others with clear eyes recognize the benefits of your culture and country having power.

With power comes wealth. With power comes pride. With power comes influence. And with enough power comes global stability, which is what the US currently provides. Why would anyone in their right mind willingly give up such power? No, we will do everything we can to maintain it because it absolutely has real value that benefits all Americans.

Fundamental values, lives, wealth and influence are all at stake here. Those who do not recognize or do not care are fools. Let us hope they never get a hold of power.

Things started to turn against him when he began to appear sympathetic to the American political Right and Trump in particular.

Agreed, but the fact that Musk is a billionaire has nothing to do with him giving out hypocritical advice. It's a non-sequitor.

Now in general human beings love giving out hypocritical advice so him being a human is far more relevant than his being a billionaire, at least if our goal here is to talk about his advice and not just use this opportunity to bash billionaires.

>"we dismantled all that stuff"

Not intentionally though. Globalization has led to most of it.

Manufacturing leaving for cheaper climes hollowed out the middle class, made unions impotent, etc.

Hypercompetition has forced companies to be ruthless.

In academia, administrators have taken absolute power for themselves and now enrich themselves at the expense of education and research.

It's quite a mess we've stumbled into.

Also ad optimization has brought in revenue for a commercial entity (Alphabet) that is willing and eager to pour its resources into amazing and beneficial things that a Law firm or Bank simply would never think to invest in building themselves.

Why are you generalizing from Musk to "billionaires"? How is that relevant?

The powerful have control and the weak unfortunately have to sit by and hope the powerful live up to their word.

Without external forces (a higher authority or some sort of coalition of the weak) to check the impulses of the strong, the strong get to make and break the rules as they please.

This is inevitable and a fundamental fact of reality.

You should bring him to an emergency room now.

The false equivalency also begs a deeper moral analysis. Let's assume the US government has as complete access to iMessage and WhatsApp as the CCP does to WeChat. The story doesn't end there, since you have to examine the nature of the entities that have access to your information.

Would I prefer that access be held by the US Government, which for all its faults is extremely engaged with and integrated into the global system, beholden to Law and a robust court system which enforces a strict set of checks and balances on its behavior, and is philosophically rooted in individual liberty?

Or would I prefer the CCP, which does not even recognize the concept of individual liberty, is beholden to no one but itself and its own desires, and ruthlessly upholds its iron and unquestioned (unquestionable, at least in China) will upon the entire nation with absolutely 0 oversight?

Yeah, gonna go with the US here.

And are wealthier than all other large developed nations too

Of course basic income on a small enough scale to avoid inflation improves recipients' wellbeing. That's not really in dispute.

The challenge is whether or not it is possible to actually implement on a society wide scale without net negative or self nullifying side effects.

One self nullifying side effect: give everyone free money -> prices go up -> everyone is back to where they started.

I did not claim that Einstein worked in complete isolation. Paradigm shifting work is defined more by its relation to the current mainstream than by whether or not it is worked on in isolation by someone generating all ideas independently. Of course that can't really happen.

Wolfram too is refining the work of others as mentioned in the article.