Yes, because nobody has ever believed themselves to be superior for reasons other than religion such as ethnicity; that would be absurd. It’s not like the Jews suffered a holocaust for exactly that reason or something.

(To be absolutely clear: this isn’t a defense of Israel; they are, beyond any possible doubt, perpetrating a genocide, and I don’t want it to seem like I’m excusing this in any way because there is no defense. I just want to note that this is a flaw in humanity that we see pop up in a variety of forms, with religion being one possible angle.)

To call this a flaw in religion is to equivocate Israel to Judaism, and that’s exactly what Israel wants you to do. Don’t help them muddy the waters.

The real risk they should be worried about is the resource commitment required to run a nuclear program in the first place (to say nothing of their ballistic missiles which have consumed incredible resources over time only for them to have underperformed in the Twelve Day War).

Their domestic situation remains incredibly fragile, and every bit of money committed to a war machine is money that can’t be committed to domestic priorities like keeping the people from wanting to forcefully interface you with a piece of lighting infrastructure Mussolini-style.

Ukraine deploying drones from trucks in Operation Spiderweb was arguably also a drone carrier, just a terrestrial one.

If I’m understanding what you mean correctly, then that is the point that Japan started building up its military again. The war in Ukraine was a shock to the system for many countries, and Japan was no exception. Their subsequent 2023 force design white paper outlined a whole host of ways that they intended to expand and modernize the force in order to better handle a potential fight if the “rules-based international order” (their words) were to continue its trajectory of instability.

Still, your point stands, as to my understanding, they remain deeply dependent on INDOPACOM for coordination a lot of the time. For example: South Korea is by far one of their best options as regional allies go, but those two haven’t really been able to put aside the hate for each other very effectively. They’re explicitly allied, but most Asia Pacific training operations involving Korea and Japan are configured with the US as the glue holding them together. I, for one, wouldn’t trust that glue to keep holding.

Sorry I’m late, but is this even true, though? My understanding is that their population is only endangered due to human mass deforestation, and that the reproductive difficulties we see with Pandas are specific to captivity.

It’s not that they’re not trying to exist, it’s just that we took away their natural environments and they’re just not made for an artificial environment. There are plenty of animals that can’t live/reproduce in captivity, and it’s not because they’re not trying.

Idk, I’m not an expert on Pandas, but imo it feels incredibly arrogant for us to decimate their habitats, imprison them in artificial environments, blame them for being unable to adapt to the conditions that we inflicted on them, and then allow them to die as if that was somehow their desire or predetermined end.

Asymmetric warfare is the name of the game, and you are correct in that Ukraine’s creative implementation of low-cost, accessible technology to generate combat power is something which any force fighting an asymmetric war should seek to emulate. Drones are a fantastic resource for equalizing a resource/materiel disparity and filling capability gaps, as we have learned. Unfortunately, though, looking at the way that Ukraine is fighting their war currently is not likely to be as helpful as looking at the way that Ukrainians were preparing to fight this war.

As it stands, the war in Ukraine turned out to be much closer to a peer conflict than the absolute overmatch that was anticipated, so the type of fighting we see now became an option. Before Feb. 2022, however, the focus was much more on providing civilians and irregulars with the arms and resources needed to become persistent thorns in the side of an occupying force. That is, rather than preparing to fight a war, focus was on preparing an insurgency. The US is unlikely to be atrophied in the same way as Russia, and while there are many valid criticisms which can be leveled at the US Military, the operation in Venezuela proves that the US retains the ability to coordinate a combined arms offensive in a way that Russia simply cannot.

That’s not to say it’s a guaranteed instant loss: Canada is a very large country, with many environmental advantages which skew the odds heavily away from an invading force, but I think that this is much more likely to be an overmatch than Ukraine was. If nothing else, though, the expeditionary wars in Asia and the Middle East tell us that a dedicated insurgency always wins over a long enough time frame against America.

To any Canadians (or Greenlanders, for that matter) worried about a US invasion, I would recommend the Swedish government’s In Case of Crisis or War brochure. There’s some information in there that is Sweden-specific, but it contains a lot of good information about prep and adaptation during wartime conditions. Additionally, the Simple Sabotage Field Manual by the US Office of Strategic Services remains a great resource in making yourself a more destructive nuisance to an invading force.

Also, get a gun and learn how to use it. Hopefully it just gathers dust, but in the worst case, you’ll be glad you have it. Know that if the US invades, I’ll be doing my best to be a domestic saboteur.

Probably depends on who you ask, but my understanding is that there is at least relatively significant support for the reinstatement of Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son and exiled crown prince of the last shah. To my knowledge, his calls for protest and overthrow aren’t the inciting incident for the currently-occurring protests (the economic catastrophe(s) Iran is going through have that plenty covered), but those calls to action have at least been been a contributing factor and rallying point for the ongoing protests.

Plus, without the US onside, NATO does not have the stocks at the moment to keep supplying Ukraine in the way they would need to take back all of their lost territory, and you can’t become a member of NATO if you have an ongoing border dispute. Unless Ukraine is willing to cede its claims to the regions occupied/annexed since 2022 (as well as Crimea), they can’t join NATO now, and they can’t re-take that territory (for now) without the US helping.

If defense production can adequately ramp in the rest of NATO, then that might change, but for the moment this seems like a decent option if it keeps US friendly and options open depending on how things pan out. They aren’t really sacrificing anything that was a realistic prospect in the short term anyways, as far as their strategic goals are concerned.

Fr. I died when I saw the title because it reads like a conspiracy theory class roster lmao

SpaceX lifts more raw tonnage into orbit than all other agencies and private organizations combined iirc, and directly controls an ever-increasing proportion of US government space-based assets, to say nothing of Starlink. Tesla, while sales have dropped, has not really seen a corresponding sustained drop in stock price (where most of his corresponding net worth from Tesla is actually located) in the meantime, though we will see if that can be sustained long term (I, for one, hope it falls off a goddamn cliff). As for your other point, Twitter (now X) and Grok by extension are, frankly, not a major factor in his worth, when assessed next to those other factors.

Correct. When we hear concerns about a declining population, the concern (typically) isn’t that a population should always be rising, or even that it shouldn’t shrink, it’s more about the long-term economic stability of the age distribution of a population within the demographic pyramid. If your demography skews significantly older, you’re going to have fewer working age people supporting your economy and more post-retirement age people needing to be supported. This can do double damage to government revenue in particular, as they will see a simultaneous decrease in tax income and an increase in pension payouts, and this can lead to a sharp contraction in the available share of the budget for all of the other government priorities.

It’s a bit ironic in this case, as this is pretty common in developed economies, and typically the way you would offset this is via immigration, as that allows you to tailor your requirements to exactly what you need to balance your demography, and so anti-immigration sentiment is only likely to cause a more severe spiral.

I will say, as someone who personally went through the American education system, that the genocide of Native Americans is actually something that is talked about in our schooling, though really only in broad terms, with basically only the trail of tears getting a specific mention. Consequently, the scale of the atrocity is not properly conveyed, but we’re pretty much all at least generally aware. In my opinion, though, that cognitive dissonance makes us worse, not better.

The larger problem, however, is in my opinion twofold. The first is that it is often framed as something which was regrettable but ultimately inevitable “they were just in the way”. This inevitability this is often presented as a component of manifest destiny, that the “American people” (who, curiously, do not include the people who were here first) were always going to end up controlling the lands that we did (see: from sea to shining sea) and so as a result we are somehow absolved by fate. The second issue is that the way that native Americans are talked about in our education system are as something that either is or soon will be a part of history, rather than as still living groups of people who we are actively continuing to oppress and marginalize in the present.

All that is to say, rather than ignorance, we’ve chosen to believe paper-thin lies to absolve ourselves instead; arguably even worse than not knowing at all.

Regrettably, Americans come factory new without the long term memory module installed. Typical cost cutting enshittification, you know how it is.

Interesting! That’s a very reasonable view, and I hadn’t considered that problem of hybridization, but put in those terms I definitely see your point of how these are somewhat mutually incompatible. I would think, however, that energy storage and grid upgrades would, if I’m understanding correctly, also assist in solving the hybridization problem, as it brings those unpredictable generation methods closer to a stable output value, allowing for it to be more easily accounted for alongside the stable output of fission, with bursts either being handled by storage or some other generation method like conventional generators (after all, we don’t actually have to take carbon emissions to zero, simply get them below the value at which more carbon is absorbed than released). Additionally, while solar is unpredictable as a result of weather, what we can say is that it only produces power during the day, and the daytime is generally when power consumption is at its highest (not universally true, particularly in that evening/early nighttime period, but the daytime is a significant spike), so I would think that helps to some degree with the variable power output problem.

Still, I can see your point, definitely. I don’t think this reduces fission’s viability for stable generation, in particular for countries which might not have the right kind of geography for those other power generation methods to be viable, but when you have the geography of a country like the US, I’ll concede that it’s definitely not your only option, and that there are others with lower upfront cost than fission. Even this isn’t necessarily true if countries were willing to link their grids to expand the available geography, but that is unlikely to become widespread practice anytime soon due to the geostrategic risk that energy dependence like that exposes you to.

And, to your point, if we’re looking from a raw economics perspective, building a fission plant which you plan to replace with fusion in 30-50 years is actually even more expensive, because a large portion of the reactor’s operational lifespan is not being utilized and so therefore isn’t offsetting that initial upfront cost.

True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy.

Correct. This is another part of why fission can’t be our only solution, but that doesn’t mean that we should be betting on fusion in place of fission. Typical times to build and operationalize a fission reactor are in the 5-15 year range from what I understand, but that is significantly lower than the expected timelines for us cracking fusion power and getting the tech mature enough to be able to implement it at scale for power generation. Additionally, the most likely type of fusion that we would be using in this case would be Deuterium-Tritium fusion, which generates neutron radiation and nuclear waste as a result (though significantly less than fission), so you would be likely to see similar waste disposal requirements. Consequently, I would expect similar timelines as fission power operationalization for a fusion plant (though likely still lower than fission, of course, due to the lack of reactor meltdown risk needing to be accounted for).

Between the research component which we have no true ability know the timeline of, only make educated guesses, alongside the construction and operationalization timeline, you’re probably looking at twice the length of time as bringing a fission plant online as a hard minimum, and I’m of the opinion it will likely be even longer. As a result, I think there’s a compelling argument for fission in the interim, though I will admit you are correct in that fusion research investment may have the ability to significantly change this calculus, so I understand your perspective.

I agree we need to fund it more, absolutely, but I heavily disagree with your assessment. Our fossil fuel emissions are a problem we need to address now, and I think it would be incredibly unwise for us to gamble on the unknown timeline of fusion to mature enough to address the problem in time. In my view, we should be focusing on halting our emissions with current, proven tech first, and then once fusion power becomes viable and scalable, then we can start switching from fission to fusion.

For real. The only maybe compelling arguments are the risk of reactor meltdown and nuclear waste, but modern reactor design and safety practices make that essentially a non-issue (indeed, nuclear power is safer even than wind power, statistically), and people typically vastly overestimate the amount of waste that is produced (all of the nuclear waste from power generation that humanity has ever produced could fit on just six cargo ships with some room left over, and that ignores the fact that not all waste is equally dangerous) and it’s not like other power generation methods don’t generate pollutants and waste either, it typically just gets vented into the atmosphere. Personally, I’d rather the waste be in a form we can contain.

The only actual problem with nuclear is that there isn’t enough nuclear material in the world for it to provide for all of our power generation needs, but that’s not even really a problem so much as it just means it can’t be our only solution to the problem, and nuclear is incredible for generating a stable baseline, an advantage that something like wind and solar lack. Until we crack profitable fusion, it is far and away one of our best options.

Here’s the thing: I’m with you. I agree as an American that the only thing that can stop this train is a wholehearted, full-throated rejection of everything this administration represents. That comes with a couple of issues, though, and the first is that the body politic here is intensely complacent; much too comfortable to be driven to action. The fact of the matter is that disapproval of Trump is the majority view, and even at the beginning of his second term that was still about a dead even split, but not even Trump’s atrocious performance in his first term was enough to galvanize a large portion of the US voter base in the 2024 election, despite it clearly being a critical inflection point. Unfortunately, if it doesn’t affect their life immediately and directly, a large portion of America simply doesn’t give a shit. Overcoming that apathy is likely going to require something large, noticeable, bombastic, demonstrably wrong, and personally painful, and by that point there’s a good chance it’ll be too late. Additionally, any revolution or unrest is likely to be heavily suppressed by the second issue: the US police state and its willingness to use deadly force, regardless of the severity of the situation. Between police forces, riot police, swat teams, the national guard, domestic surveillance, and now the might of the US military turned on its own populace, the Trump administration has all the tools to make any true resistance deeply costly and incredibly painful. Talk of resistance, of revolution, of taking up arms against this fascist takeover is easy, but the feasibility of a clean revolution in the face of the US police, military, and intelligence apparatus is doubtful. More likely we would end up with either civil war or insurgency, fighting an asymmetric campaign against an overwhelming force. We know that the US is vulnerable to such tactics (see: US expeditionary wars in Vietnam and the Middle East), but we also know that those tactics are incredibly costly, and require a populace that is highly motivated by what they perceive to be an existential threat.

The key here, in my opinion, is the military. Historically, he who controls the military, controls the state. The victors of coups and revolutions practically always have the military on their side, and for good reason; very few things are as persuasive as the threat of a bullet. Morale in the US military right now seems to be low, and if we can manage to break the trained obedience to hierarchy, we might just have a chance, but without them, I don’t see a way forward. Even every citizen striking and causing a complete shutdown of the US economy would just be likely to lead to threats being made to and examples being made of them, and getting people onboard for that is unlikely to be feasible from a fundamental level, given that the majority of America lives paycheck to paycheck.

I don’t want to be fatalistic or claim that this can’t be done or that we shouldn’t be doing anything about it; we should, and have a moral obligation to act, but the reality of the situation is that the time to act while avoiding discomfort was last November, and the viable options available to us now are going to hurt, and will likely only get more painful as time goes on. That makes people hesitant to act, and until such a time as they have more to lose from inaction than they do from action, I don’t expect that to change.

God, do I hope I’m wrong, though.

Is that more or less powerful than god and anime?