Could this somehow be a scissor statement? This is simple logic, there is no motivation here.
HYPOTHETICALLY let's say your uncle has an 80% chance of having cancer. Do you say that he has cancer? Or would you say it's likely that he has cancer?
"Trump's pathetic attempt at saber rattling" is the truest and fairest statement on the whole affair that I can possibly muster. Which is nothing like threatening to invade. Hilarious and sad, but not frightening.
Email me we could even discuss live! sutter at gmail
- "I think he's implying the use of force" (you own your thoughts!)
Problematic statements:
- "He IS implying use of force!" is actually just a guess, even if (let's say) it's 80% likely to be true. It's still a guess. It's not something you know.
- "HE THREATENED TO USE FORCE!" you've just promoted your guess into yelling fire in a crowded theater because you're a troll
None of this reasoning applies if you're a cat. For a cat, words and sentences just register as an emotional valence, with no comprehension of what it means to distinguish fact from inference.
If you are a cat, I apologize for misapprehending your lived experience.
Now you’re saying he didn’t actually make a threat, but he implied one?
Which means you’re assuming his intent to be whatever makes for the most lurid headline.
Funny that these professional journalists didn’t think to ask to clarify such a monumental possibility. Or maybe the ambiguity was what they wanted all along. And apparently people (such as yourself) just eat it up
Yes, he definitely refused to rule out use of military force!
But that really and truly is not a threat to use military force.
Consider the following hypothetical:
- * IF * the questioner had followed up with, "Are you threatening to use military force?" and
- * IF * Trump answered "of course not"....
Would that be a contradiction? Not at all! Because his first statement wasn't a threat.
This is literally strategic ambiguity combined with bad statesmanship. But if you look up any and every time he has been asked whether he would rule out the use of military force, I would expect that in every case he declined to rule it out. Of course he's a buffoon, so he might not have adhered to that correctly.
With AI there will always be people who learn more, faster using AI. And there will be people who use AI to avoid learning. When moving abroad, I hope folks will do the former (and the latter as tourists).
When I move back to Japan I'll wear something like Even Realities glasses, and when unknown vocabulary gets used, display that. Personally I think this will help me learn better than before. But let's wait and see!
I'm very hopeful about learning-acceleration tools. Just think what will be possible with Neuralink.
On first reading I assumed you meant the physical laborers would have the stronger social network, and the wealthy would be more isolated (true in my experience). But you may have meant just the opposite!
In fact it's two separate questions because it can go both ways, heavily.
> The new year was only three weeks old and President Trump, after removing Venezuela’s autocratic strongman, had briefly threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark.
Did Trump threaten to seize Greenland? The WSJ links to an article with the quotes below. The quotes reflect sheer buffoonery (as expected), but so far I haven't seen the threat to seize Greenland.
This seems to be the consensus, but its not clear to me that it happened.
From the linked article:
> During an hourlong speech at the World Economic Forum, the U.S. president said he wouldn’t deploy the military to take control of Greenland.
> It was a stark shift in tone for Trump, who just days earlier had declined to rule out using the military to secure ownership of Greenland and posted an image online of the territory with an American flag plastered across it.
> “I don’t have to use force,” he said. “I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
> “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it,” Trump said of his desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
The right way to age-restrict is for parents to configure certain devices as kids devices, and then it would be easy for any service to know if they are communicating with one of those devices.
This gives parents control, and honestly would work great.
Between $5-10T of the US economy is subject to export controls. Nobody disputes that Mythos is dual-use technology, which means it has been export controlled since the day it was created.
Companies are responsible for demonstrating criteria to export (for example) a nerfed version (Fable) of an export controlled item (Mythos)
Nothing here is novel, unusual, capricious, or … fascisistic.
While extreme cases are the easiest to imagine, in real life the plaintiff almost always argues to pierce the veil and the defendant always argues the opposite, and both sides earnestly believe that they are right.
Americans use credit cards and rarely debit cards because here the terms on debit cards are so much worse (for contesting charges, etc), so debit cards never really caught on for anything more than withdrawing cash.
In the US, users of debit cards are assumed to be uncreditworthy, because debit cards in the US have such bad T&C's that poor credit score is the main reason folks use them here.
twitter @paulsutter
sutter at gmail.com
cofounder at neofactory.ai, formerly quantcast cofounder, formlogic founder