Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#851

Post by 47282847 »

hax0ron3 wrote: post #767
ryandrake wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you don't vote, you're really just voting for "whoever happens to win". So I count the non-voters among (R) supporters, or at least as "OK with Trump". Otherwise, they would have voted.

I don't think that makes sense. If Harris had happened to win through some minor change in the timeline (she came very close after all), would those people whom you call R supporters instead somehow be D supporters, just because of that minor change in the timeline? As for "OK with Trump", I think that describes some non-voters. However, there are also non-voters who are more accurately described as "not OK with eith…

> would those people whom you call R supporters instead somehow be D supporters, just because of that minor change in the timeline?

Yes.

See also: support; passive/active

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#852

Post by mrs6969 »

qsera wrote: post #826
mrs6969 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 is my answer. Exactly my question to you: What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because…

>100 is my answer We both know that it is not true. Because by this logic, you wouldn't fire a weapon at someone who is about to stab your wife or child. Because there is a small chance that they will die of a heart attack before they can do it. So it is some value that is < 100%, but apparently that is not good enough for you.

You did not accept my answer and did not answer to mine as well.

On top of that, while you are pulling some hypothetical scenarios, the reality is exactly as I described. Governments, especially us gov, kept invading, bombing and killing people based on some subjective percentages and this is still ongoing.

Although you did not like my ‘prefer to die instead of kill’ idea, you still did not solve ‘you can kill everyone since there is a chance anyone can kill you’ problem. And reality is closer to latter, unfortunately.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#853

Post by shafyy »

WalterBright wrote: post #786
shafyy wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to keiferski's excellent comments: There is no such thing a truly free market. Neoliberalism is just an excuse to not care about things that stand in the way of people making more money or gaining more power. This wealth we have built was not built on a totally free market (whatever that means), but much more social form of capitalism. The countries where there is the least povery and highest standards of livi…

> There is no such thing a truly free market. Nothing human is perfect. However, history shows us that the more free market an economy is, the more prosperous it is. It doesn't have to be "truly free" to be effective. In contrast, whenever socialism is tried and it fails, socialists describe it as "not true socialism". Since there is also no such thing as true socialism, the more "true" a socialism is, the more it fa…

> However, history shows us that the more free market an economy is, the more prosperous it is

As my example with the Nordic countries show (and there are many more), this is certainly not true. I don't know why you mean by "true socialism", there no such thing. Socialism is a broad category of economic and political philosophies.

However, how anybody can look at neoliberalism and say that it has been successful is beyond me.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#854

Post by SirMaster »

mindslight wrote: post #793
SirMaster wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying fascists don't care if it inaccurately targets themselves?

Not really. Look at the longstanding "I didn't think the leopards would eat my face" dynamic. The whole movement is rooted in othering an outgroup for which violence against is moral and good. None of its supporters imagine themselves ever being in that outgroup, and if they do end up there by then it's too late. In the domestic surveillance context, it's not like decisions of an automated system are ever going to be…

But if the argument is that they don't care about accuracy, then what's to stop the system from targeting themselves or the leaders they support?

Remember, the system is not accurate, so you cannot accurately tell it to avoid or ignore anyone special.

I think they do care that it's accurate. That it accurately targets other people not themselves or their leaders.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#855

Post by mindslight »

SirMaster wrote: post #854
mindslight wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Look at the longstanding "I didn't think the leopards would eat my face" dynamic. The whole movement is rooted in othering an outgroup for which violence against is moral and good. None of its supporters imagine themselves ever being in that outgroup, and if they do end up there by then it's too late. In the domestic surveillance context, it's not like decisions of an automated system are ever going to be…

But if the argument is that they don't care about accuracy, then what's to stop the system from targeting themselves or the leaders they support? Remember, the system is not accurate, so you cannot accurately tell it to avoid or ignore anyone special. I think they do care that it's accurate. That it accurately targets other people not themselves or their leaders.

It's very easy to make up for that with a human in the loop or deterministic secondary checks (enumerated list of protected people or locations). The point is that nothing about the "AI" magic has to be super accurate.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#856

Post by maxglute »

komali2 wrote: post #849
maxglute wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which the ROC does not claim ROC claims over all Chinese territory formally via inherent territory / universal succession when Qing abdication transferred sovereignty of all China to ROC, territories predefined as all China. Seperatistards tried to get court to formally define, i.e. redefine it as to not include mainland but court chickened out and tossed it down to political level and original state/claims (again,…

Your insulting tone diminishes the validity of your argument to nothing. There's no point in talking to someone like you.

Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#857

Post by dhosek »

bdangubic wrote: post #704
actionfromafar wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a next time? I wouldn't bet on it.

every year we hear the same thing but wheels keep on turning. we will vote again, we will make more mistakes in 2026/28/30... this "there will be no election" comments are quite silly in my opinion, America gets stupid from time to time but we get the fuckers out and try something else (which inevitably leads to some progress followed by more failure followed by...). Just remember it always comes down to - "it is the…

What worries me is that we are seeing unprecedented levels of lawlessness and open corruption in the presidency and a guy who has been open about his desire to be a dictator. Given what he did after the 2020 election I don’t see much hope that he would allow a congress to be seated that would impeach him.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#859

Post by komali2 »

maxglute wrote: post #856
komali2 wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your insulting tone diminishes the validity of your argument to nothing. There's no point in talking to someone like you.

Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinfor…

I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.

You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#860

Post by bad_haircut72 »

snozolli wrote: post #470
DANmode wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The release date of the show 24 is fun.

My pet theory is that NYPD Blue and 24 paved the way in the American public mind for authoritarianism via the "good guys bending the rules and using violence because they know this guy did it" theme.

Ever heard of Dirty Harry? This is a very old trope.
Post reply on HN