I don't need to offer my own analysis to know that "Netanyahu asked trump to go to war because he wanted to create instability and that it was because of the the military industrial complex" is the sort of analysis you get if your research is 2 or 3 facebook posts.
A war of what?
Do you really believe that states wage war because of "revenge"?
> Perhaps America isn't as dumb as you think
No, they are dumber.
If this presidency was in Europe - or any other 1st world country - it would have been obliterated immediately and the party wiped out in the next elections.
> it's not an exaggeration to say that Cuba is flattened and invaded that same afternoon
But it is, the US is no position to flatten anything.
Afghanistan? Lost
Vietnam? Lost
Ukraine? Lost
Iran? will be lost
And these are heavily embargoed 3rd world countries.
In the first days of the Israeli-US war in Iran (a country under decades of embargo by the way) the US, Israel and vassals lost 60+ planes (plus who knows what else they are not reporting.
Trump is not coming out of this, if he makes the grave mistake of sending troops to their demise this administration is done.
> But it is, the US is no position to flatten anything.
The US is certainly in a position to flatten (with conventional force) anything in the Carribean, whatever failures it had in long counterinsurgencies where the logistics tail wrapped nearly halfway around the world. (And however badly it would probably fail in occupation in many of the places it could easily flatten close by, for that matter; flattening is much easier than occupying.)
> Afghanistan? Lost Vietnam? Lost Ukraine? Lost Iran?
Lost Ukraine? Ukraine hasn't lost and the US was never a direct belligerent in that conflict.
This is pure propaganda. It should be flagged as misinformation. There is no true to this complete nonsense that 60+ planes were lost. You can hate the US or have any opinion you want like the Ayatollah was great or whatever but don’t spread pure social media propaganda, please. Do you know how big of a deal losing 60 actual planes for the US would be? I would just say, if you are quite sure about all this then I think you might hit it big on polynarket.
> There is absolutely no doubt about Yann's impact on AI/ML, but he had access to many more resources in Meta, and we didn't see anything.
That's true for 99% of the scientists, but dismissing their opinion based on them not having done world shattering / ground breaking research is probably not the way to go.
> I sincerely wish we will see more competition
I really wish we don't, science isn't markets.
> Understanding world through videos
The word "understanding" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I find myself prompting again and again for corrections on an image or a summary and "it" still does not "understand" and keeps doing the same thing over and over again.
Do not keep bad results in context. You have to purge them to prevent them from effecting the next output. LLMs deceptively capable, but they don’t respond like a person. You can’t count on implicit context. You can’t count on parts of the implicit context having more weight than others.
It just seems to me that that Macbook Neo is basically them telling us that come next year they will unify iOS and MacOS and they are testing the waters at the moment.
All this version alignment, the blurring of "here is a laptop with A processor and iOS" points to that direction.
The errs of Tahoe are basically a result of the rush on that direction
i hope you're wrong. they certainly have seemed to test the waters on many other fronts. the $99/yr notarization fee is now basically required as running unnotarized apps is made hard and scary enough to turn off probably 97% of average users
they also briefly took away the ability to disable gatekeeper per terminal command (now back)
next they wanna launch a touchscreen macbook, presumably this fall
I hope they don’t ever do a touchscreen MacBook. They already have every angle of that use case covered far better than the competition; either you get an iPad if you absolutely need to be pawing at a screen, or you have the excellent trackpads that are far and away par excellence. I don’t see how a touch screen on top of also the industry standard for screen quality will in any way improve by having greasy finger trails distorting the tiny pixels.
Maybe I’m missing something. How would a touchscreen MacBook improve on something?
That being said, based on what I’ve been seeing at Apple, I would not be surprised if they did go down that mediocrity route.
> How would a touchscreen MacBook improve on something?
It won’t, but there’s now an entire generation of users who get confused and angry if any kind of display doesn’t react when you poke it with your finger.
I would say the M5 Max MBP, Mac Studio, and the acceptance of Apple hardware as the pinnacle for personal local LLMs are good signs that they are not going to unify iOS and macOS.
Claude Code and it's parallels have extinguished multiple ones.
I was able to steer clear of the Bitcoin/NFT/Passport bros but it turns out they infiltrated the profession and their starry puppy delusional eyes are trying to tell me that iteration X of product Y released yesterday evening is "going to change everything".
They have started redefining what "I have build this" actually means, and they have outjerked the executives by slinging outrageous value creation narratives.
> I’m chasing the midnight hour and not getting any sleep.
You are 60; go spend some time with your grand-kids, smell a flower, touch grass forget chasing anything at this age cause a Tuesday like the others things are gonna wrap up.
Then you failed at education if a prompt can undo decades of education.
And the failure of education was an intentional feature, not a bug, since the government wants obedient tax cattle that will easily accept their propaganda at elections, not freethinkers that question everything because then they might notice your lies and corruption.
It's like building a backdoor into your system thinking you're the only one who gets to use it for the upper hand, but then throw fits when everyone else is using your backdoors to defeat you.
While I understand that once one attains those short of connections, certain intelligence agencies will reach out offering lucrative opportunities for your co-operation.
Disgusting nature aside, I can't help but be amazed as to how someone can be so well connected. What sort of skills did Epstein have that managed to have so many people on speed dial?
How do you get in a position to correspond with presidents, royals, celebrities and getting them all hooked on you?
A few years ago there was some news articles about “group chats that rule the world”, and for some reason people didn’t take it seriously enough. Closer to the top, it feels like it’s “everyone knows everyone” game. Playing against those groups just leads to a perma-loss, so you’re incentivized to partake.
Anyone who tried has failed. It’s in the interest of the group to actively silence the dissidents as well. And it’s pretty easy when you already have the power.
Isn't part of it that he had leverage on many people, given the amount of evidence there seems to be? I guess that would be one way to further the network via 'favours'.
He was a talented con artist. While I don't have the link offhand, I recall reading an in-depth article the New York Times published on Epstein's rise. He gained connections first by exaggerating his own credentials, and later by exaggerating the depth and nature of his other connections. He was very good at convincing people that he was someone they needed to know.
Being omniconnected was his job, if you think he was being managed, and his business, to the extent he was freelancing and trading on his own account.
How do you become omniconnected? You offer people a good time. How do you have repeat customers? You offer them a too good time. Why the disgusting acts? Because mere sex isn't scandalous enough.
Sometimes you do it because you've been commissioned to do it to a specific person. Sometimes you do it on spec because you think you can sell it. There is no one goal or ideology or theme to it other than it's gotta be nasty enough to blackmail a target.
I think it’s an oversimplification. Epstein isn’t the only “connecting big people to other big people” person. It just happened to be on top of all the shady stuff, he also trafficked kids. I believe there are more people like him, just flying under the radar.
Well, it’s not a crime to connect big people to other big people. If you are not trafficking underage people or smuggling drugs and weapons, chances are no one cares. Doesn’t mean you’re under the radar.
Him being in jail awaiting trial, which risked him exposing the details of the operation if he felt it could help him get a lighter sentence.
If the choice for Mossad was either risk Epstein exposing that Israel was essentially running a state-sponsored underage sex trafficking ring, or kill him before he can do that, you know what they'd choose.
Right, so pretty much every rich person was implicated by and at risk because of Epstein, including the sitting U.S. President at the time, but it was actually Mossad…
How do you run a crime organization that big and that out in the open (communicating openly via email, which not even the biggest drug cartels dare to do) without getting taken down by the various intelligence agencies of the world, even avoiding the U.S. federal law enforcement for the longest time?
There is one answer: Epstein was protected by state forces, not that of U.S. but of its closest "ally" (more like master at this point).
Not that they need it that much today, anyway. AIPAC sponsors almost all of U.S. congress, check out how much your congressmen and women received from AIPAC here: https://www.trackaipac.com/congress
> There is one answer: Epstein was protected by state forces, not that of U.S. but of its closest "ally" (more like master at this point).
This is a bog-standard white nationalist trope (“ZOG”), gussied up with current affairs.
Epstein avoided the consequences of his actions because he was a wealthy, powerful man surrounded by other wealthy, powerful men (who in turn stand to lose a great deal by having their behavior exposed). Not because the Jews secretly run the world.
Where in their comment did they claim Jews secretly run the world?
The implication that the nation state of Israel has a lot of influence on US politicians is pretty clear and obvious at this point, and is not the same thing as “Jews run the world”.
If we replaced Israel with India, pointing out that India has immense influence on US politicians wouldn’t be the same as saying “Hindus run the world”. Nation states are not proxies for their ethnic groups like that.
It’s quite obvious from the tropey language used in both your comments and wild claims you are making about Israel because Epstein was Jewish that you do link Jews with Israel when it comes to hating on them.
Well I imagine CIA was in on it too of course, having blackmail material on these powerful figures across the world is useful for both of those intelligence agencies.
It's at a minimum extremely ignorant to believe or pretent that this begins and end at "Mossad" being a magical shady force that controls the world. Looking for tight little narrative misses the complexity of human sociery.
I'm in Norway, and I wonder if I see different prices than people from elsewhere in the world? Here it says $1.7K, and I can get the LG UltraFine 6K 32" for $2K, with the benefit of being bought from a Norwegian retailer (think guarantees and shopping security).
To be clear; I have never tried either of these monitors, so I can't tell if either is any good. :D
> How likely is it that those "protestors" are US and Israel propped
It's almost sure that both US and Israel are meddling with the current situation. That doesn't mean the situation isn't also started by and wanted by the population.
For a comparison point in the past, the civil rights and antiwar movements in the US were grass-roots movements started by local people with legitimate claims. At the same time, opponents of the US like USSR were involved in stirring these movements, because of course they would.
There isn't much you can infer about the legitimacy of a movement by learning that the movement is helped by foreign intelligence agencies.
The best way you can avoid this kind of confusion is 1) make a society in which malicious actors don't have many latent issues to stir, and 2) make it so your country's intelligence agencies aren't malicious actors. There isn't much else to do.
Iran has a water crisis, and allegedly the economic situation is so bad that people are starting to wonder if it will soon affect their ability to buy food.
Even the Romans knew that if you wanted to stay in power you had to provide bread and circuses.
Very, but at the same time the Iranian leadership have been a really shitty government and ran the country into the gutter. People have genuine grievances.
The only way to believe this is if you're a Westerner being fed a purely US-centric media diet. Otherwise you'd know all the ways that the Iranian government has been failing their people recently and for a long time now, and how unhappy Iranians are with their government. You people act like people can't be upset at how they're being treated by their own government without being incited by an external actor. That's honestly quite the dehumanising and insulting way of looking at it.
Also, if the US wanted to do a regime change, they'd just move in militarily a la Venezuela and Trump would be talking about it non-stop. He's not the subtle type, I promise. We'd already know if they were involved.
I don't see any tweets about how the protesters are working for the US. Like, Trump would literally say how involved they are right now, and he isn't doing it. He's a child who's incapable of being subtle or not talking about how great his "accomplishments" are. Your link doesn't show anything relevant.
The view that trump went to Iran because “regime awful” does not seem to qualify
reply