You are utterly delusional.

Maybe, but unfortunately you won't be able to downvote me until you start making more substantive comments.

Thucydides Trap is just the nonsense of historicism.

What rising power went to war with the hegem with a currency peg?

What rising power went to war with a hegem with a currency peg and its largest trading partner? A coalition that would include several of the top trading partners.

Like all points in history, the current moment is unique and pretending you can predict the future from the past is stupid.

The Belfare Center for Science and International Affairs has a nice report (https://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-trap/case-file) indicating this is a good predictor for conflict (and lists examples that you can use).

Although, I'll definitely agree with you that all points in history are unique. Thucydides Trap shouldn't be understood as predicting the future using the past (that's absurd by definition). That would be a reductio ad absurdum, but it isn't what foreign policy scholars are actually arguing here.

Instead, it's a description of set of incentives that shape the relationship. What the individuals in power choose to do with those pressures/incentives on the relationship is absolutely a different question. The point the "foreign policy elite" in the United States are making is that it has strong incentives to agitate for a fight with China, before it becomes an competitor (as opposed to a "near peer competitor" or "pacing challenge" - the current language).

I suppose its worth clarifying. Do you deny that there are such structural elements of the Sino-American relationship? Or is your argument wrt Thucydides Trap that it isn't deterministic? Or something else?

Nope, I don't even see what the excitement is for.

We seem to be in denial of the scaling problems we face in that we can't even beat out the 1 year model.

I subscribed and unsubscribed to Claude 3 in about an hour. It is just not better than chatGPT4.

It is incredible to me that with all the motivation and resources of Meta, the best they can do is to produce a language model that isn't worth the time to even bother trying if a chatGPT4 subscriber.

Very cool. I will have to join "mod wiggler" lol.

I have been out of it so long muff wiggler is now mod wiggler. Come on, that is absurd. Muff Wiggler was the best name ever.

Yeah.... no. Why audio-nerd forums were ever so infantile as to brand themselves with "muff" and "slutz" isn't much of a big mystery, but we haven't lost anything of value by seeing those 'cute' names off. I'd like to chat about synthesizers with fellow nerds without feeling rightfully embarrassed about the name in the header.

Those cutesy names were also a barrier to getting girls and young women involved in this stuff too. Changing it to modwiggler was absolutely the right thing to do.

I am both a classical guitar player and long time synth head.

"Everything is possible" is a bug and not a feature in many ways.

It certainly is possible to synthesize an expressive instrument to the level you describe but what usually happens is you move on to something else.

"What does this knob do??" Wahahahaha

That kind of thing is just so much fun compared the guitar that you have to actually learn to play.

Those are shockingly bad.

I am sure someone will tell me there is a reason why I am wrong and these aren't that bad.

Midjourney has never needed an explanation though with words. The proof is in the output. Everything else is nonsense.

I use to listen to NPR for 6-7 hours a day at work, 20 years ago.

In 2024, they are simply a reflection of what modern liberalism has become.

The 2005 version of David Sedaris would practically be considered "right wing" in 2024.

Critical theory and intersectionality have come to dominate all liberal discourse to the level of farce. NPR is just a mirror.