toss1

The question you asked (Positing UKR taking parts of RU, etc.) *inherently presumes* the counterfactual of Ukraine being an aggressive, expansionist dictatorship. Ukraine is zero of those things, and the question is irrelevant. But IF the actual UKR had taken significant RU territory, and was offered a peace deal allowing them their full sovereignty and territorial integrity, they would immediately take the deal.

Your mobilization numbers are fantasy, and Putin has held off declaring mobilization not because he thinks he does not need to but because it would require drafting people from the middle classes near Moscow instead of the rural impoverished territories that can be ignored politically. A full mobilization could end him. If he had enough people, he would not be getting soldiers from North Korea and deceiving Africans to put into their meat grinder

Yes, Ukraine has a manpower problems also. They are solving it through innovation. And it is working. Just look at the verified death counts from both sides

You really are a persistent apologist for Putin, not some kind of middle ground arbitor you hold yourself out as.

Thank you for basically acknowledging Putin has zero interest in any peace other than Ukraine's full surrender.

Putin in the immediate term is trying to achieve by talking what he cannot achieve on the battlefield. And NO, Putin does NOT have millions more soldiers available. Russian daily KIAs are accelerating and he's already making deals for more NK troops.

The aggressive moves in Europe, ramping up every kind of hybrid warfare, active measures, and dezinformatsiya pressure they can muster shows the Ukrainians are winning with the deep strikes. Russia can not defend its many soft targets, is already in massive deficit and depleting it's sovereign funds, and will lose much more as Ukraine's new Flamingo missiles come online.

Requires concessions. Right. UKR already TODAY offered to give up 20% of their territory and condemn those Ukrainian residents to the torture and death offered by the Russians. You do not think that is a concession?

What concessions are the Russians making at the 'peace' tables? NONE. The Russians stick to their maximalist demands of taking ALL of the "annexed" oblasts they can not even take with the full might of their (declining) military, AND demand Ukraine basically disarm and become a vassal state.

Where are the Russian concessions? They do not exist.

This alone shows who is the aggressor and who is the defending victim.

Get real.

While it is generally not the brightest move, they might have been thinking it was a tear gas grenade, which are not uncommonly picked up and thrown back at the cops (using thick gloves or a rag). This is because tear gas canisters get hot instead of exploding. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference in under a second and maybe the tear gas reaction was just slow-starting on that one.

And they literally exercise more editorial control and reach than any magazine or newspaper editorial board ever did.

Section 230 was a Trojan Horse.

If they want to be treated like an innocent carrier (i.e., telco), they must kill their algorithms.

No news media company writes or says the reports of the journalists they publish or broadcast, but they are nevertheless responsible for that content.

If social media wants to control the algorithmic feed for profit, they must be like any media, "fully responsible for their content", and must be held accountable for it.

Just to add to the sibling comment, Zelenskyy just publicly (again) stated on Fox news [0] he would accept exactly the deal you proposed — freezing the conflict on the current lines, and doing so in a way that prevents it from returning, i.e., your "Ukraine armed to the teeth", security guarantees, and sovereignty.

This is a manifestly unfair deal, rewarding Russia for open aggression in violation of every international law and its past agreements. Yet Ukraine is willing to do it (the President says so with confidence he will be backed by the other governmental bodies needed for approval and implementation).

Putin has already rejected those kinds of deals, and I have no doubt he will also reject this.

That is because the 100% cause of the war is Putin, his immediate desire to eliminate Ukraine as an independent and successful state, and his longer-term goal to reconstitute the Russian empire.

The sooner you recognize this reality, the sooner it will make sense to you.

[0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/zelenskyy-says-agr...

No, you just sound like someone who has become confused by all the noise (primarily generated by Russia and its apologists).

We agree: Putin does not like any reasonable outcome and shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

You have just described a deal that Zelenskyy has indicated he would accept and Putin has already repeatedly rejected — freeze the existing lines of conflict, and allow Ukraine to remain sovereign and fully arm itself.

Putin has repeatedly flat-out refused to allow Ukraine to have anything but a crippled military.

The obvious intent is to leave Ukraine so weak it can easily invaded again, so it will either bow to every Moscow demand or will simply be fully invaded and destroyed at a time of Russia's convenience.

Why?

Because Putin can NOT tolerate any condition under which Ukraine is free to be successful or independent, and especially to join NATO (which has proven for 3/4 of a century to be purely defensive).

Moreover, Putin is now stuck, as he has broken the tacit deal with the people that he can lead with corruption and adventurism as long as the people aren't obviously burdened and standards improve. Now, he's killed a half million men, the remainder are broken monsters he can't return to society without breaking it, and he can't just declare victory and end it and still keep his position (or likely his life).

Beyond those local goals, Putin has himself said his goal is to recreate the Russian Empire, beyond just the USSR territories. It is behind all his hours of lecturing on (twisted versions of) history. He will not merely stop at Donbas.

Putin also always follows Lenin's rule: "We probe with bayonets, where we find mush, we press on, where we find steel, we withdraw.".

The only actual solution is to push back so that Russian cannot economically or militarily continue, then arm Ukraine to the teeth (whatever border they end up with).

Autocrats like Putin do not stop unless they are forced to stop.

Turkey figured it out in 2015; a pair of Russian fighters violated Turkish airspace for less then two minutes; Turkey shot them down. Problem solved, hasn't happened since.

The problem is all the EU politicians are afraid of Russia breaking up, as if it will be somehow worse than Russia reasserting imperialism. EU only enforcing a no fly zone over UKR, applying the frozen RU assets to UKR rebuilding, and hard-sanctioning RU oil and isolating RU politically would do it. But they are all too politically chicken and want to kick the can down the road. Meanwhile Russia is already waging hybrid war to break up the EU.

Globally, and historically, the fight is always rule by the people or rule by the few.

If the rest of us fail to fight, everything WILL be taken from us by the few, the despots and the oligarchs. It may not be immediate and total, but it will be inevitable. Unless we fight at every step.

The list is not one-sided, it is factual

The fact remains, it was RUSSIA who INVADED Ukraine, and did so after emphatic public declarations it would not do so, and after signing treaties it would respect Ukraine's territory

It is RUSSIA and PUTIN in particular who has everything to gain from wiping out Ukraine — a successful and European Ukraine would be the source of revolution in his country, as Russians would see the contrast of a former Soviet state with relative wealth, success, and freedom.

Ukraine has respected every proposed cease fire until Russia violated it. Russia has violated every cease fire, often including this week literally violating it as it was being announced (the "Energy CF") oplitering power plants the same hour it was announced, while Ukraine held off all energy attacks for three days while it's power plants got pummeled.

Meanwhile, the ONLY thing Ukraine has to gain it it's own freedom. It would gain nothing from Russia's failure, beyond it's own stated goal of stopping the war.

Russia could unilaterally stop the war this minute. If Ukraine stops fighting, Russia has repeatedly proven it will overrun and obliterate Ukraine.

You have zero ability to cite how Ukraine started the war, or how it could stop the war without surrendering. If you really were initially for Ukraine, it is sad to see you now both-sides-ing it and falling for Russian propaganda.

If you can show a way for Ukraine to stop fighting without surrendering or being overrun, you will surely be up for the Nobel Peace Prize. However, we both know how Russia could stop the war this minute.

>>I'd obviously prefer the latter, but not to the point that I'm willing to die to prevent the former.

Well then you are just myopically stupid and willfully ignorant of history if you DGAF whether you live in a democracy where priorities are determined, at least attempted to be determined, by the people, vs by an autocrat.

And you obviously DGAF about your children, or the future of society.

Under Autocracy everything gets worse, down to the point where the people cannot tolerate the starvation and revolution is fomented.

Of course there is the occasional benevolent dictator, and those systems have the advantage of being able to do better long-range planning and mroe rapid changes of plans. But they are not stable and inevitably a malicious or greedy dictator or oligarchy takes over, and things start getting irretrievably worse, and the population starts dying of impoverishment.

Does it really matter if you die of impoverishment from the leader's stealing or war from the leaders' theft?

The only way forward for humanity is for democratic governments to ensure continued and improved democracy AND fight expansionist autocracies to contain and eventually eliminate or convert them.

If we fail to do that, it will be only years before life devolves into feudalism of a few lords and everyone else hopeless peasants. And no, you won't be one of the lords.

Just because a claim is used as propaganda, does not mean it can not be or is not true.

Start with "1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!", and 2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!"

For this Russian invasion of Ukraine, both are 100% true.

Russia was a signer of The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 [0], in which it guaranteed to 1) Respect [Ukraine's] independence and sovereignty in the existing borders 2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of [Ukraine] and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries 3) Refrain from economic coercion of Ukraine, etc.

In the weeks and days leading up to the RUSSIAN INVASION of Ukraine, Putin himself as well as Lavrov and others repeatedly announced "these are just routine military training excerses and Russia has no intention to invade Ukraine".

Then Russia invaded Ukraine.

Ukraine did not invade Russia, or even provoke it in any way. What Russia claims as provocation is Ukraine making moves to join the EU, which Russia itself guaranteed as Ukraine's right in the Budapest memorandum.

And the situation now: If Russia stops attacking and withdraws from the Ukrainian lands it agreed to respect, the war ends instantly.

If Ukraine stops defending itself, Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, and commit the same mass executions, rapes, tortures, and kidnappings it has already done in this war in Bucha, Mauripol, Kharkiv, and more. [1] Moreover, these atrocities are accelerating [2]. This is also consistent with Russian history such as the Holodomor [3] a massive man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.

Russia has always invaded its neighbors, run a genocide, and then claimed "This was always Russia".

Moving on to 3: Ukraine is not making these claims

4: Ukraine does not claim this, beyond noting what the Baltic states also know inherently, if Ukraine falls, the front line moves to Europe, Russia will not stop, any more than it stopped at Ukraine's borders which it promised to respect in 2022, and Russia is already making kinetic attacks in the rest of the EU

5) We've already reviewed this above, Russia is deliberately targeting civilians EVERY DAY, and goes on "Human Safari" drone hunts against civilians in Ukraine, while Ukraine scrupulously targets military and dual-use targets. Russia's stated goal is to eliminate the very concept of Ukraine existing. Ukraine's stated goal is to retain it's territory and prevent Russian atrocities on it's soil.

6) Russia has repeatedly been documented, even with their own posted videos, using phosphorus and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Not so for Ukraine.

7) Documented by international organizations and even tracking only video evidence, this is true for Ukraine's fewer losses vs Russia's massive losses. This is also evidenced by Russia needing to bring in North Korean soldiers and recruiting by deception in Africa — Russia wouldn't need to take those humiliating steps if they weren't exhausting their own manpower supplies.

8, 9, 10), I do not see Ukraine making those claims, but Russia's Durgan "academic philosopher" constantly posts them

So NO, just posting a list of "these points are often used as propaganda" does not discredit the facts or make them propaganda.

But it does make more work for the people who must clean up the bullsh*t spewed by posters like you.

If you really feel so strongly about it, I suggest you move to Russia and see for yourself how great life under Putin is.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...

[2] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-a...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Not great, but are you equating the turmoil right after Yanukovych was deposed, Crimea was invaded and occupied by Russia, and there were serial interim governments with a the more stable govt that came after?

Again, is this a horrible exception, or is it the standard way they operate. For UKR it is the exception, for Russia, it is the way they operate, right up to human safari FPV drone hunting and killing of civilians posted on social media by the perpetrators.

Yes, I'm sure it is not negligible, since it never is, even with the best-disciplined military. Adrenalin runs pretty high when people are trying their best to kill you and all your family, friends, and countrymen.

But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.

Right, highlight the one incident on the Ukrainian side vs the standard war-crimes treatment by the Russians, and yes, there are also a number of incidents during capture on the both sides.

Also note the mismatch in POWs died in captivity returned by Ukraine (14) vs by Russia (>1000, as of [0]).

And note the overall condition of Russian soldiers returned is well-fed, and Ukrainians returned are barely walking.

It has been some 400 years since Cardinal Richelieu said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." [1] We can always find an exception to condemn someone.

Our task is instead to try to get a fair grasp on what is happening. Highlighting the exceptional event out of context is not helpful

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_Russo-...

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

edit: completed last paragraph; accidentally posted incomplete

Europe are already fighting Russia. Russia has made scores of "hybrid war" attacks throughout Europe and GB, including attempted bomb-laden drones at Leipzeig airport, cutting numerous undersea cables, and even "errant" drone attacks. They are also likely behind amplifying the current unrest in France.

EU politicians don't want to acknowledge the ongoing war because they think it would be an escalation and they also have a fear of 'Russia breaking up'. Other than the Baltic states, they don't realize the only way to stop it is push back, hard and fast, as Ukraine is doing. The Russian military is low-capability and declining, reliant now on North Korea and Iran, and the economy is sliding. The reality is little could be better than Russia breaking up and finally abandoning it's imperial ambitions, which are still active today.

You aren't deadlast, you are dead wrong. On every point.

The Ukrainian war never stopped. Russia has never paused attacking for even one day, in more years than WWI. The War on Ukraine never went away and so can't "come back"

No one supporting Ukraine is supporting a foreign dictator. Zelenskyy was elected in a free and fair election, and elections have been involuntarily suspended while the country is under continuous bombardment targeting civilians. Holding an election would be literal suicide and condemning voters to death by announcing every time and place where people would gather, just to make it easy for Russia to target them. And there is ZERO question — Ukrainian civilian casualties are NOT collateral damage, they are deliberately targeted by Russian missiles, long-range drones, and individual civilians are even hunted by FPV drones in "human safari" incidents posted by Russians themselves.

Ukrainians are only defending their own right to live on their own land under their own government, and not have their children kidnapped and their neighbors and themselves tortured and slaughtered, which has happened in EVERY city Russia occupied. Russia is doing what Russia has always done — invade and genocide a neighbor, then say "this was always Russia".

It is absolutely disgusting that you come here to post such lies and characterize any support for Ukraine as if it were support for an autocracy, when YOU are the one supporting Russia's autocracy. You are factually wrong and morally abhorrent. Rethink your life.

for the Russian soldiers, it would certainly be a better fate than remaining on the field for a few more tens of minutes before they die (on average). AFAICT, they are treated better in Ukrainian POW camps than in the Russian deployed positions

Thank you for convincing me and everyone I know to never even ride in a Tesla, let alone buy one (and, sadly, I had planned to make one my next car).

I looked up the owner's manual description of the opening mechanism (posted by (ammar2, above) [0], and found it was an insanely dangerous design, literally worthy of an escape room as other sibling posters have described.

It is hidden below a mat, which must be removed, then a red tab pressed (not pulled), and there is a big caution AGAINST using it when the car has any power as it may damage the car.

So, you are in a rapidly expanding lithium fire, you must first determine if the car has power or not, and then you must fumble and root around to find which trim mat to pull, and then whether to pull (wrong) or push the red tab.

If you fail to do these steps quickly enough, you will die a horrible death in a fire (as many have).

If you use this lever at an inopportune time, you will damage the car.

In what other automobile does using a manual door-opening mechanism damage the vehicle?

This is one of the most insanely user- and owner-hostile designs I have ever encountered or heard of in life.

And it has actually unnecessarily cause at least a dozen people to be burned alive and conscious.

And here you are defending it in multiple posts like some idiotic fanboy. Seriously, rethink your priorities and your life. It is truly sad your identity so much depends on someone else's massively flawed personality and product designs.

[0] https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/2020_2024_modely/en_us/GU...

That may be so, but these are two very different things:

[has X]

[has X designed, built, and visible in the car such that it can be easily found and operated whilst panicking for your life, or rushing from outside while trying to save a trapped passenger's life]

There are people who would tell you that while Tesla may have the first, it does not have the latter, but they cannot because they are dead, and should not be.

Seems the prediction was not that the plants would somehow evolve to become carnivorous, but that the humans would later categorize them as carnivorous?

So predicting human activity rather than future evolution.

>>users who want choice have to take responsibility, users that don't can just use Apple

I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility — when using a well-designed system that isn't a massive pain-in-the-arse up front designed for vendor lock-in and to penalize small vendors.

Criticizing the new system isn't avoidance of responsibility, it is demanding a product that is worth using, i.e., NOT designed for the manufacturers to extract more money from us without providing more value or locking in their market position, but designed to be actually useful to the people who will actually use it.

EDIT: add last 8 words

Despite the fact that chip making machines come before chips, this seems like a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator.

These would be among the first orders placed in a build-out plan, and the build-out plans are first in a boom. The bust phase would very well happen before the orders are completed, and orders would not decline until the bust phase starts?

Yup, if they are in business long enough to onboard the hire...

You evidently missed the part about "joy and mirth".

They are their own reasons for making choices.

If you want to understand how joy and mirth are solid reasons for choices, beyond the scope of a forum comment, lifetimes of study await... (or you could 'just' learn to enjoy things a bit more)

It may not be tasteful, but it is nevertheless accurate, and has nothing to do with tech management (much of with is also incompetent, just amplified incompetence).

I wish I could find it, but a study almost two decades ago (way pre-COVID) found that when re remote work made good managers' teams perform better and bad managers' teams performed worse.

It was basically a matter of good managers understand the work and the goals and get their team to work towards that, and bad managers manage just by expecting their workers to know and micromanaging their irrelevant behaviors (like butts in seats visible to the manager, time on the keyboard, etc.) hoping to get results.

It does not matter what the field, but I count any manager in the second group as fully incompetent.

If a manager does not understand the work, the goals, and the methods, steps, and milestones needed to achieve the goals, and the irrelevant work that doesn't make real progress, how can they be judged as anything other than incompetent?

Based on what evidence do you think that post was LLM-generated?

I can assure you it was 0.000% influenced by artificial systems.

Evidently, evaluating human sentiments is outside the scope of your training.

EDIT: Oh, wait, it must have been the emdashes! Sorry, I've been using those since before LLMs were invented. Where do you think the LLMs learned to use emdashes? From competent writers who used emdashes centuries before computers were even invented. Yeah, and that "flag" is soooo 2023. Please try to keep up.

I've found it depends a lot on how Claude is setup, and spending some real time on the default Private Instructions to focus on accuracy, identifying/flagging uncertainty, citing sources, checking itself, and first surfacing all assumptions and asking questions dramatically pays off in terms of getting concise and solid usable results.

Edit: add: I've found this to the degree that a relative who works at a top biglaw firm and has their internal AI (MS-based) and used to find ChatGPT and Claude actively time-wasteful, when I posed a question they'd spent a day+ fruitlessly researching (multiple areas of law and international), Claude came up with a very useful answer in ~10min — they were quite impressed.

The last year has made a huge difference

It is not pollution when it is the desirable outcome.

It isn't like the relevant environment — the set of Internet forums — somehow predates human influence; it is nothing but the sum of human influence.

Cat pictures at least add joy and mirth, and are driven by real people without outside motivation.

If anything is pollution in that environment / context, is is the rise of content driven by surveillance capitalism and political corruption.

At this point (at the risk of turning a measure into a target), might we be able to gauge the natural-ness of a forum by the number of cat pics?

"Should" is not the same as "Is/Does".

Most of the key molecules of life are chiral, existing in one of two mirror-image structures; life uses only one. Receptors and enzymes using one cannot generally recognize the other. Most 'wrong-handed' chiral chemicals are like having a key cut in a mirror image where the index slot and the pins are cut on the wrong side; it won't even fit in the lock.

It could plausibly turn out there is so little ability for the different chiral forms to interact that 'mirror life' would not be a threat. It could also turn out to the extent they could interact, regular life could also detect and evolve how to counteract the novel pathogens in time.

And even if the interaction is low so they aren't highly infectious, the lack of ability to recognize the 'mirror-life' means regular life cannot attack it so mirror life grows unchecked and consumes resources needed for all life.

But there are so many unknowns, and so many unknown unknowns, and such absolutely catastrophic consequences for life on earth, that relying on ALL of those possible success modes working is stupidity beyond insanity.

This is probably the biggest example of "just because you can does not mean you should".

Exactly, in this case the middle ground is right, just as with text, if everything is highlighted as BOLD UPPER CASE, then effectively nothing in the message is highlighted

Yes, they are intelligent in some ways and must be to survive, but just looking at the steady long-term depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer [0] and the actual squandering of water as mentioned by GP, where spraying it in midday results in massive evaporation, they are clearly being stupid about usage [1], time-of-day optimization, etc. and dooming the area to soon become a barren wasteland.

The lack of drip irrigation used in more arid areas, jsut because they have water today, is kind of shocking, and stupid.

[0] https://www.mygeoquest.com/ogallala-aquifer-depletion-map-an...

[1] Unless cooling is somehow critical, or there is a fungus growth problem from watering at less-hot times of day.

Indeed, "competent and proactive government intervention" on the subject of AI would be highly unlikely in a competent US govt, and under this regime is far beyond beyond laughable

The only regulation that would come would be regulatory capture by the AI companies with the goal of creating an environment win which no new competitors could arise. That is half of what this "take all jobs" and "threat of extinction" is about; the other half is perverse marketing to give the impression this stuff is so powerful you MUST invest.

AI can be very useful, but it is very refreshing to hear LeCun completely dismiss those threats.