even if btc does a hard fork, you'll need to "reshim" the encryption on each wallet. and you can only do (n) tx per block. and only 1 blocks per unit time. this limits the speed of bitcoin moving to PQC, it must take at leaat ~3 years iirc
CENTCOM claimed the F-35 made it made it back to base, but right after the hit happened, they sent out a Chinook to run search patterns in the area. Additionally, the pilot was treated for shrapnel wounds. As he's at the front of the plane, it wasn't some "near miss" like that really cool F-18 evasion (where it timed the break exactly and the shrapnel all blew past it).
CENTCOM has turned out to be about as honest as the Russian or Ukrainian MoD. They flat-out lied about this shootdown all while sending out search teams. There is some circumstantial evidence that two Blackhawks were damaged trying to run search and rescue operations. There are also stories coming out that they are using bureaucracy to hide massive numbers of casualties.
On the other hand, it would have alleviated famine in 43 countries for one year and if your response to that is "but that's not ending world hunger and I will not do it", you really need a long hard look at yourself.
But then again, Musk is going to turn out to be one of the great mass killers of world history with his destruction of USAID. Why would he spoil that by helping some folks?
where do you draw the line? Suppose someone had a program that spent 6 trillion dollars that fed 10 people for one year. Would you then say "you need to take a long hard look at yourself". Not keeping people dependent on a program for just one year is exactly the point that Musk was trying to make. Solve the fucking problem, don't put a very expensive bandage on it.
> But then again, Musk is going to turn out to be one of the great mass killers of world history with his destruction of USAID. Why would he spoil that by helping some folks?
If you consider turning off an program that a group of people aren't particularly entitled to as equivalent to mass murderers who pulled the trigger on people like Stalin and Mao, maybe you need to take a long hard look at yourself. Suppose yanking USAID prompts the creation of a more efficient, more local solution that feeds more people. Will you give Musk the credit of saving people's lives?
Well before someone comes out with a ludicrous bad faith hypothetical.
> Suppose someone had [ludicrous bad faith hypothetical]
Whoops.
> Solve the fucking problem, don't put a very expensive bandage on it.
That only works for the most trivial of problems. Anything complex will need expensive bandages until a complex solution can be worked out and, more importantly, implemented correctly.
> maybe you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
I have, many times, and that's how I turned from a bad faith edge lord posting this kind of hypothetical drivel defending the indefensible for years into a slightly less problematic member of society. And I will continue to take long hard looks at myself to try and improve further.
> Suppose yanking USAID prompts the creation of a more efficient, more local solution that feeds more people.
Again a bad faith hypothetical but let's assume this does happen - great! That would be grand. It still won't take away from Musk being responsible for one of the biggest mass murders in history.
Also famines are political problems to start with. We have more then enough food. Getting it to people reliably is the issue - i.e. there's usually a plethora of other issues like an active war.
It also isn't an economically isolated enterprise: Ukrainian grain shipments traversing into Europe via Polish roads and not heading to Africa via their ports caused a bunch of price crashes which became political flashpoints.
The issue is that simply saying you're going to deliver food aid is elliding pretty much the entire problem. You cannot simply deliver food aid, because to do so you might have to fight and win an entire war against one or several insurgent groups or governments.
You could turn up reliably and distribute quite a lot of food, and yet at the end of the day find there's still a famine.
Right, which is why I never said I was going to simply deliver food aid like it just required trucks and gas. It's why UN World Food Program, an organization with actual experience, designed a plan to deliver and distribute food. Please explain why they are wrong.
They're not but it also won't end world hunger. Because world hunger is not being caused by accidental deficits in food availability: it's caused by serious local security threats and in many cases deliberate political action.
Good question I think. Norman Borlaug was known for transforming places with food importers into food exporters. And to ask the question again occasionally makes sense. In recent history we are exploring the idea of vertical gardening etc. I was joking to someone once that we should grow watermelons vertically so that the large heavy melons could power a carousel style escalator or water pumping mechanism.
Not all areas are equally good at growing food. That can be because of climate, soil quality, war or simply population density requiring housing and industry.
Maybe it's too malthusian of a view but I think a big issue to contend with is that some people should not be as populated as they are and there's no push against it from either government or the dominant economic systems.
And yes that includes the controversial poor population hotspots of africa that have grown super rapidly beyond multiples of what the land can provide
But also just the same places like arizona with comparatively rich folk growing the urban desert sprawl
Is shipping food there the correct solution? For war, an ostensibly temporary condition, by all means ship the population food. But if an area is already overcrowded beyond what the land can sustain (due to climate, soil quality, or population density) then is it productive to further bolster the population? Seems a human catastrophe in the making, supporting population growth in an area where the land can not supply enough food.
My worldview is based on the cities I've lived in, in which the citizens of that city have the means to purchase the food themselves. Therefore the movement of food into that city is in the economic interest of those supplying the food. Furthermore, that food _is_ grown locally, within half a tank of gas from the city itself.
I should note that the cities I'm familiar with, and thus my worldview, have multiple thousands of independent suppliers bringing food into the cities as profitable businesses, not a single altruistic organisation functioning off donations. Therefore there are much fewer catastrophic points of failure - an event that would prevent food from getting into the city would be a large, wide geographical catastrophe. Not the whimsical changing of political positions or sudden misfortune of donors. And in this worldview, when natural pressures such as population overdensity occur, the feedback loop stabilises at a sustainable level - those for whom food becomes too expensive move to cheaper places. I've done it myself.
on the other hand the us interventions have betrayed that chinese radars e.g. don't "work as advertised", to the point that there have been purges at chinese military industrial manufacturers. on top of the recent purges in the military hierarchy, it seems like action against Taiwan is delayed for a few years.
conversely the US brass now has a fire lit under its ass due to low ammo stockpiles and and excuse to replenish them faster, develop anti drone tech faster etc.
imagine not having the current embarrassment in iran -- the generals would be complacent, and should a conflict arise over taiwan, they would not be ready.
of course, but point being: status quo was it wasn't happening, and the trajectory wasn't good.
Another example: Someone will have egg on face for leaving AWACs out on a tarmac (exactly dumb thing that we made fun of russia for doing) and so that seems unlikely to happen, if for no other reason than doctrinally, for the next minimum half decade or so.
euro doesn't have enough volume. yuan has very strict domestic price controls so its a weird risk to take. (you could get insta-fucked, way harder than dollar inflation mismanagement, if china suddenly allows its citizens to move money)
This is why I said "decade" and not a shorter time frame. We're in the midst of some extraordinary times where things will shift quickly out of pure exigency. It's pretty clear that nothing can replace the dollar overnight, but most of the classic arguments in favor of it (stability , American military, etc.) are rapidly becoming obsolete.
This stuff is already happening. American Dollars have fallen from 66% of world currency reserves in 2016 to 56% last year and it's still going down. [0]
If the water merchant in the desert wants to charge in blowjobs, people going to starting giving blowjobs. 30% Hormuz oil is not short/medium term substitutable, if Iran can enforce (big if) Petro yuan then we get Petro yuan. USD already demonstrated proven instafuck instruments, the limitation of Petro yuan id access since most have trade surplus with PRC who isn't going to print because they don't want reserve/triffin drama. They'll likely do something like panda bonds, i.e. vip trusted loans because petro yuan =/= reserve where everyone qualifies, much better system is only buyers PRC trusts gets access.
if yuan goes oil denominated and appreciates in value, China's manufacturing advantage from low labor prices evaporates and china knows this. things are already bad in china due to low demand (workers burning factories since they are not getting paid -- look up "brother 800")
Currency appreciates due to printing / supply. Hence I specifically highlighted petro-yuan =/= reserve currency. PRC not going to be brrrrting yuan to replace USD liquidity. PRC simply going to extend yuan swap lines to trusted petro-yuan users, it's not going to fuck with reserve triffin dilemma.
Thing are fine in PRC, exports higher than ever, some sectors getting shafted vs others, but strategic ones, i.e. not low end textile like brother 800 but intermediary goods doing better than ever. BTW side effect of high oil prices is PRC coal to petchem stack for industry just give 2/3 of PRC industry 50% input discount vs everyone else. Now global demand going to fall if high energy price persist, but PRC poised to capture more share simply being even more competitive producer, if not only producer with regular/prioirty access to hormuz energy.
<semi-self-promotion> Not only that, since there is a super-standard std allocator api, it makes itself very amenable to memory safety analysis, as long as you don't sneakily implement allocations outside of that api.
I wrote: it's not particularly orwellian. like all the other us administrations have had mass surveillance boners too. and the us is not nearly as surveillancey as other fascistic regimes, or even contemporary social democracies.
finally, orwellian means a lot more too, especially "controlling how people think by controlling their language". again, the trump administration doesn't do that much of those things.
this administration has a lot of problems, but its pretty straightforward.
reply