Notes: I'm stuck with this and wish I could leave, but the combo of security and attachments leaves me with few options. Notes is buggy, lacks interoperability, has crap AI integration, etc. BUT... the real pain is Apple Messages. The inability create folders, rules, etc. is insanity. At a time when most comms are instant why would you not offer users the same level of organization they enjoy with email, or with other IM platforms?
Free market is better when its truly free. Free from:
- Predatory export subsidies.
- Protective non-monetary barriers to import/export.
- Theft of intellectual property.
- Monopolization of dual-use and essential manufactured products.
- Two sides that are not posturing for war.
- One side that is not disregarding international law.
In the case of AI, the scale of CCP military command & control, and intelligence collection is vast due the size of the PLA, PLAN, MSS, etc. Denying them AI to fuse and coordinate may be a lost cause ultimately, but time has a value all its own and that's what the US is after as it - and its allies - reconfigure to defend the SCS, India & the Pacific in general.
Sabine highlights the problem with scientific funding in this video and it should be required watching before posting on this thread. Reform is needed. Some good will be tossed with a lot of bad. Its a cycle, a pendulum, and it will eventually tip to excess again sometime in the future. For now... fixing what is broken ought to be the priority.
I got to the point where he says the email she made a video about is probably her own making and stopped. It is a >1.5h response to a 10-minute video, and at minute 7 (of 1.5h) he proceeds to basically call her a liar in a fundamental way without having any strong evidence for it. Mind you the first 7 minutes were spent claiming she put forall quantifiers where she just implied strong prevalence and telling how much better the guy is for the society than her. From these things I would say you'd waste your time watching this unless you want to practice fishing for fallacies. The 3 I mentioned so far are: the leaky bucket fallacy (weak evidence for liar claim), straw man (arbitrary adding forall), and ad hominem (attack character instead of presenting argument).
"The field" in her case is "particle physics". And she's been making a very good case against the non-science being done in that field. Unfortunately, like physicists tend to do, for some reason, she's branched out into criticizing "not her field" as well, sometimes even non-science topics, to far worse effect. She's become an excellent example of audience capture, a loss to us all (and a loss to credibility she earned within particle physics).
I think there may be a language issue here; to use her own words as best as I can remember them, excusing her bluntness under "perhaps I'm just German" — a messy kichen here in Germany would be described with the word "Chaos", and a mistake that a Brit would call "dropping the ball" would be described as "eine totale Shitshow".
But that means I don't put too much credence to her summary of climate science or trans stuff: when it's the topic of inclusivity attempts, she's got the direct personal experience to play the "here's how well intentioned policies backfire" card; when it's the internal politics within science, honestly that reminds me a lot of software development's cycle of which language, framework, design pattern, and organisational orientation pattern (objects, composition, functional, etc.) is a code smell or the smell of coffee that one should wake up to, so it rings true even if I can't verify it.
Yes, we create service accounts on the source platforms which can then be used to do an OAuth or key based integration. What would you like to do specifically?
The components of a strategic manufactured product can be as simple as an injection molded switch, a LiION battery, capacitors, copper wire, etc., so the notion of bringing only "strategic items" back is as much a myth as the idea its mostly coming back to the USA. The goal here is to diversify the supply chain globally so its not concentrated in China. Internally this is sold as bringing MFG back to the USA (will happen to a noticeable degree), but that's not the actual plan.
If you're looking for malign influence on 4chan - look outside the US. Anyone on /pol/ and /k/ after Oct 7th understands clearly who has been influencing if not controlling the site.
The math doesn't account for anything. The formula they published literally has (4 * 1/4) as part of the equation, hidden behind Greek letters, to make it appear more sophisticated.
It's "trade deficit / imports" without any care to why those numbers exist on a case-by-case basis.
This wasn't a thought out solution that took into account the vast multivariate things that happen in the real world, including those you mentioned.
They also used CCTLDs instead of countries which is how we ended up with:
* a tiny Australian island got much higher tariffs than Australia
* tariffs on an uninhabited island * an island that is only inhabited by a joint US/UK military base getting tariffs
Are they really CCTLDs? Not an attack, I am genuinely curious because I have been wondering how they came up with that list. Half the countries have trivial amounts of trade and it felt like a waste of time to even propose it.
Non-monetary tariffs:
- Regulatory hurdles that prevent import (eg. CE requirements)
- Currency manipulation (eg. RMB)
- Domestic industrial subsidies (eg. export tax credits).
... you have a lot to learn about international trade.
