That’s bs. Even just the preface to Phenomenology of Spirit is chock full of ideas that folks would be better off if they contemplated. Hegel can be considered a visual thinker (or visionary) whose ideas don’t need “measurement”. If folks understand his thoughts on the master-slave dialectic, for example, they would have an idea as to why we have such incompetent leaders like trump. His thought suffers from the same problem of any thinker who tried to be systematic, but it is still worth being inspired by.
The point is not “could someone get benefit from this” it’s that there are better heuristics to use and using old ones means you’re operating on old software
By that standard literally anything is valuable even as just an example of what not to do so it’s a meaningless measurement
You originally made the statement that "Hegel is irrelevant in the age of measurement", to which I objected. Unless you're going to back pedal further, you did find studying Hegel questionable.
I'm not going to go on the attack, but your pronouncements and self-certainty do not sound well considered.
That’s an interesting idea. I think the fiber optics for drones works because it is only used once over a short period of time. It seems like a cable connected to a mine could be easily disrupted by dragging an anchor with a small robot boat.
And as another commenter noted, mines get moved by currents, so the cable could get tangled and snap.
In the modern era, the difference between sea mine and drone or torpedo can be a lot fuzzier than you may expect. People think of spikey balls, but some sea mines today can do stuff like use passive sonar to match targets against an internal database before firing a homing torpedo. I doubt Iran has these, but they certainly have the proficiency to think creatively about the problem.
I mean you could have some slack in the cable easily, and have the mine become intert should its cable snap.
You have to be mindful of enemy tampering, but overal I would say the idea's worth investigating.
On an unrelated note, I was also thinking of using fiber optic drones to rapidly set up an unjammable communications network on the battlefield. Surely that would be useful for something?
Please apply your thoughts to Israel then. Israel is the greatest destabilizing force in the middle east. From Gaza, to false flags in Iran, Saudi Arabia and who knows where else.
But effectively, that means no empathy. Both Musk and you (explaining Musk) have set it up in such an extreme way that it makes it appear as if empathy is bad and there’s really nothing you should do.
Short of lighting yourself on fire, you could (1) invite them to use an unused space to sleep, (2) donate your time, money, food, water or other goods, (3) advocate for better solutions on a local, state or nation level, or (4) at least not foment hatred against them.
There is a wide variety of empathetic actions that one could do other than burning yourself or nothing. This directly applies to every social, political or economic issue that Musk has tangled with, but instead he sets it up to convince himself and others that actually there’s nothing he can do and empathy is for losers.
I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative?
Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it.
It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement:
They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes.
Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings.
That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.
> Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, according to two sources with knowledge of those internal discussions.
"that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, "
specifically
"could carry"
Sounds like people doing their job, and informing a president of potential outcomes, precisely what I predicted above. The media always makes things seem more adversarial than what it turns out to be.
Your comments make it clear that you are a propagandist and maybe even a bot. I assume that you can comprehend English, but are choosing to be obtuse. If that is not the case, and you still cannot understand the warnings, ask Claude or some other AI to help you.
Iran doesn't have nukes and had agreed to never build any, they fully complied with all audits.
You seem extremely confused, its really strange why you aren't demanding completely bombing and destroying the actual nukes in the only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes.
Then UBI. This is a failure of our economy, which creates perverse incentives. Clean air, clean water, good food, plentiful housing, and opportunities for sport, contemplation and art are the things we need, but our economy incentivizes people to pollute, sell slop, restrict housing, and exploit ourselves and others.
I see you lack some basic critical thinking skills:
If UBI were enforced, landlords and food markets will just raise their prices, knowing that everyone has more money.
Another issue is that if everyone received say $1000 monthly, what protects the future generations, what prevents politics occasionally lowering this number diluting your implementation of UBI?
Even if the laws regarding the issuance of UBI weren't touched, what prevents the loss of your UBI for future generations, as money devalues due to inflation?
How do you ensure the UBI amount increases with inflation, who will define and measure that level of inflation?
Wouldn't it be more attractive to have a more American idea (Georgism) intertwined with UBI?
Can you prove that society can pay the UBI? Where does the money come from? Wouldn't a proposal that demonstrates provable affordability of the proposal be more effective?
What if everyone received the Average Rent? All Land (in a single nation, or the whole world over) would be considered a common good, but available for rent, minus natural reserves for example. So farm land, housing, city appartments, but also mines.
Who sets the prices? And what does it mean to receive the Average Rent?
First let's prove that it doesn't need external funding (unlike your UBI we don't need to look for funding): the sum of all rent being paid by N citizens, viewed as the source of income, is redistributed over N citizens, resulting in the Average Rent expended. People can still get jobs to earn money on top of their unconditional Average Rent. If you were satisfied with average, you are basically living on your proper share minerals, sunlight, space in the Earthly biosphere, as a kind of birthright. If you are satisfied with less than average for a while, you can save up money until you have say a business model. You want to live extravagantly, i.e. above average? you would have to find a job. In this world the latter category would either be very motivated individuals or a victim of their sense of entitlement.
Observe that unlike some $1000 figure in UBI, it is a discrete concept, either one receives the Average Rent, or the system has evolved to stop issuing Average Rent to the population. A clear difference as opposed to minimizable "tiny changes" in the $1000 figure becoming $999 etc. So UBI is vulnerable to smoothly loosing civil rights, whereas Average Rent is a clear integral concept, either whole or broken.
Who sets the prices of the appartments etc ? Well, if you are a landlord you choose the highest bidder. If in the system of Average Rent, everyone is treated as an equal co-owner, then we could similarly decide to rent out places to the highest bidder. Each mine with minerals would be rented out to the miners that bid the most, funding your Average Rent, enabling the consumption of say electronics (smartphone etc.). Each plot of farmland would be bid on by farmers, and the most efficient farmers or farming styles would outcompete the less efficient ones (monoculture), or perhaps some plots of land would be more lucrative when exploited as Solar Farms. If somebody outbids you on your dwelling you can either raise your bid in return, or find another place, so that the group can find the most mutually pleasing allocation of resources.
We could protect children against abusive parents and traumatic childhoods by teaching them to temporarily override the transfer of their Average Rent for the duration of a school trip, each year progressing towards more independence (first time just teaching the kids how to redirect their Average Rent to the hostel where they reside for a week, another year also on paying for a laundry, or for the travels). As children progressively learn how to take control of their Average Rent finances, and then after the school trip redirect it to their parents again; we are also teaching them how to walk away from toxic households in case they deem it necessary.
Surely a provably affordable proposal that captures the Spirit of UBI without inheriting its vulnerabilities is more attractive I presume?
And it is provably affordable: if we denote the rent expended by a citizen indexed i as r_i then the Sum(r_i) would be the total generated, and if we divide it by N thats just the definition of an average of a sequence of rents. The proceeds divided by N matches the average of rent expended. It's affordable by definition, no need to levy income tax, cheese tax, tobacco tax, etc.
Now tell us again why UBI is so attractive, apart from how dilutable it is (the people running the central bank can intentionally devalue the currency to turn the $1000 UBI into a symbolic-but-worthless-gesture), apart from how unfinancable it is (who do you propose pays for all this UBI?), apart from how unprovable the payability is (perhaps your funding proposal may sound feasible today, but tomorrow that source of income to fund UBI may evaporate).
Yup. I used to work at an academic research center that held a yearly conference that attracted CEOs and other ‘elite.’ It was shocking to witness them unable to get coffee, find the bathroom, or accomplish any number of basic tasks, without a small gaggle of assistants to lead them.
There are also some people in power who believe climate change is related to the end of times and eagerly welcome it to hasten their idea of ‘Armageddon’
That’s bs. Even just the preface to Phenomenology of Spirit is chock full of ideas that folks would be better off if they contemplated. Hegel can be considered a visual thinker (or visionary) whose ideas don’t need “measurement”. If folks understand his thoughts on the master-slave dialectic, for example, they would have an idea as to why we have such incompetent leaders like trump. His thought suffers from the same problem of any thinker who tried to be systematic, but it is still worth being inspired by.
reply