If you watch YouTube interviews/documentaries about the CIA, one of the things that all of them point out is the disguise division, which makes some fascinating facemasks and other disguises.
The logistics required to win intercontinental wars against a reasonably large and well-defended country are simply beyond human organisational capabilities and it's only getting harder as defence gets better and easier, and the world becomes more interconnected.
Israel have Monkey's Pawed themselves. They wanted Trump to win because they knew he would be malleable to start a war in Iran. But he's also Trump, which means every decision he makes comes with a big asterisk.
The logistics required to win intercontinental wars against a reasonably large and well-defended country are simply beyond human organisational capabilities
But the Trump admin was using AI, which has no cognitive biases, no 5 +/-2 working memory limit, and a very large short term memory. They should have the ability to do this.
She's not wrong at all about her rhetorical implication (being, some information requires more than simple systems can provide), but she has concluded incorrectly that a car which does not know how to avoid a busy route is useless technology, or that the problem can only be solved by inventing life.
Well, yes, because the US government has staked the future of the country's GDP on AI. They're even divesting from science as a whole and putting it into data centers.
Okay but political leadership of the US are literally are staking the future of GDP on exactly those few AI companies... $1.4trillion so far while universal childcare would only cost $40 billion a year.
> political leadership of the US are literally are staking the future of GDP on exactly those few AI companies... $1.4trillion so far
Can you explain where you get that number from?
The information I have:
a) The government took a nearly $9 billion stake in Intel to support its chip-making efforts.
b) The Pentagon took a $400 million equity stake in MP Materials, a rare-earth miner.
c) Sam Altman has advocated that the US government take equity stakes in AI companies. Sen Bernie Sanders wants the US government to take 50% stake in AI companies! Nothing has come of it though.
d) Defense department AI contract value rose to $90.7B in 2026.
So I'm super curious where you pulled that $1.4T number from.
There's a cognitive dissonance on this site where everyone claims to hate this attempt at regulatory capture, yet they would do it too if it was their tech company and call it a "moat", and many are actively working towards that.
You might be a victim of the Goomba Fallacy[0] where you're seeing two opposing opinions from two distinct groups of people, but since those are expressed on the same site, it seems as if 'the site' is contradicting itself.
obviously not. Its about the fact that the two people expressing those two opinions are literally different people... They don't have "cognitive dissonance", they are two people! They disagree! thats normal!
I haven't done this with any of our technology. Of course, I'm also not as profitable as some companies and have much less control over trying to lock my customers in.
This does mean my YC application is far less likely to be accepted.
Just because someone wrote a post on a site with orange banner it doesn't mean they agree with other people that wrote posts on the site with the orange banner.
Let's learn the concept of "different people have different opinions", shall we?
There's no cognitive dissonance. If it's not legislated against you're just being naive and kneecapping yourself by not abusing the rules. End of story.
Is this cognitive dissonance, or is this just people being normal?
You pursue business strategies as a profit maximizing business person concerned with outcomes for your company and investors. You comment on the regulatory/political matters as a pro-social citizen concerned with societal benefits.
Cognitive dissonance tends to occur when attempting to avoid hypocrisy... and doing mental gymnastics to make it so there are no clashes between your different perspectives.
Taleb made a lot of money trading, his firm failed but running a successful business is not trivial and his ideas ended up working when he took up an advisory role rather than an executive role. Unlike other financial "influencers", he actually seems to understand mathematics to a high degree.
He made money when he was working for other people. He did not make money when he tried to trade off his ideas. That was 25 years ago, since then he just broadcasts his ideas.
You don't have to be self-employed to have skin in the game, that's ridiculous.
How many op ed writers have tried to have skin in the game at all? How many of them produce writing which is actually high quality and not just concern trolling about China or what have you?
Porkbun is an interesting case study for this support model. They reply to everything personally, and for me the important thing is not that I'm talking to a human, but that I'm not hearing corporatespeak.
I would even be happy to talk to a bot if it was fine-tuned to speak like a regular person instead of a corporate drone.
it is not an llm company, but it's part of independent ecosystem. one of two. canada is not part of it. it's part of very dependent ecosystem. isn't that 2+2?
There likely isn't a Canadian Alex Karp. Karp is a unique byproduct of American culture. The specific brand of arrogance, hunger for war, and callous disregard for human life, all in service of a right wing ideological project, is simply not as present in Canada because Canada is a middle power with more liberal values who prefer diplomacy over war.
He fills a niche, particularly successfully ,but the required substrate exists in every society. In societies that superficially reward other qualities, these people mold themselves to fill other niches that provide power: politics, tech, press. When the niche appears in Canada, or Germany, or the UK, these people will come out of the woodworks wearing whatever face they need to at the time.
Granted, America's been leading on encouraging the worse angels of our nature for the last, what, 70 years? But these personalities exist everywhere.
I think you can't really measure a country's approach to war unless that country is already quite powerful. This is the reason that it's said that power corrupts. It's easy to have good values when it's difficult to have bad values, or there is minimal benefit to such. But give a man (or country) tremendous power, and suddenly having bad values can be immensely rewarding on short to medium time scales.
I appreciate that you think so highly of Canada, but no. There are still plenty of people that fit that description born in Canada.
I think the main thing is they all move to California or New York as soon as they can, because they can't achieve their sociopath ambitions as easily here.
