FriendOfDeSoto

If it bursts we’ll get a lot of data centers looking for something to do. And RAM prices will come down but … What’s causing the bottle neck right now is that your average RAM factory needs a couple of years from designed to built to working. So the supply is limited right now while the demand is high. While us end users can’t use the data center gear, in a pinch they could use ours. So the bottle neck gets tighter. So if the bubble collapses, supply will increase and that will bring prices down. If it bursts about two years from now, all the hastily built RAM factories will churn out cheap RAM. But none of this is guaranteed, not the busting and not the dead cheap prices. Because the demand for RAM will not drop off a cliff, it will most likely decrease slowly. All this processing power in post-burst idle data centers will find a way to be used - with what I do not know. There will still be a higher demand for RAM compared to pre-ChatGPT times. So RAM will not flood the market, we will just return to a relative equilibrium of the market.

I don’t think this is right-wing specific. You could probably draw similar conclusions coming from an Islamist angle. And this so-called AI is going to be next “frontier” is not all that clear to me yet. It’s a nebulous threat at this stage that starts with a lot of “imagine if” arguments. We don’t know yet. It’s worth paying attention. But we don’t know if HitLLMer chatbots are going to cause more damage than the concentration camp simulation games that preceded them.

There is a good 15% of people who are drank the koolaid right-wing believers. I don’t think that number has changed much in the last century. The number that changes is how many of the less extreme or undecided people in the middle they can convince they’re right.

The internet is only as regulated as the least regulating country on this planet. So all it takes is a tiny island nation or a principality left over in time to break the chain. It’s also conceivable (imagine if!) that a fine, upstanding citizen like Elon Musk uses the change he found in his couch cushions to circumvent any regulatory efforts anywhere to distribute otherwise regulated content via his private satellite network. The answer cannot be “let’s limit speech more.” The answer must be “fight back with truth and facts.” If asshole ideologists use all the digital tools available to spread their bullshit, we need to fund initiatives that counter that speech with the same tools.

Did you call the police when he sounded the siren at night? Like 999? From what I read here there is enough there to get him cited if not arrested.

You need to keep a paper log of every incident. Keep it factual, just answering the w questions, no “dickhead was a dickhead again”, just “Mr Smith turned on his radio at very loud volume at 6:30am on 6th December.” “I asked Mr Smith about the loud noise on 6th December at 6:30am when I saw him outside in his driveway at 9:23am. He told me he did it on purpose.”

I would call 999 for every noise complaint in the night and every threatening remark made against your brother at any time. You need a stronger paper trail for people to do something. You’ve complained to your council and you’ve talked to the police. It seems that wasn’t enough.

Don’t retaliate with loud music or deliberate harassment yourself. It might be hard not to. But you need to be spotless victims. You don’t want a ‘let’s look at both sides’ to give the impression you provoked anything at any time.

How is the third semi detached party feeling about this old guy? They must feel some of the nuisance? Surely they could corroborate that your brother isn’t doing werewolf things at night? See if you could get them to write letters or call the police as well. The more neighbours join in, the better (but don’t start a poster campaign, it should look “natural”).

Is there something that can be done to stop foxes from coming into the gardens? If they are the “werewolves” here then this could be a way to root out that delusion.

Does the old guy have family? Is there a way to reach out to them? Not in “reign in your fucking dickhead father!” but “we are really worried about your father’s mental state because he keeps making outlandish and unsubstantiated statements.”

Can you google if there is a solicitor in your area that will maybe hear your case for no or a low fee to see if you can take this to court? Either the old dickhead or the council for not doing anything about him? That’s where the paper log might be useful.

The only word of warning I would leave here is this: you said you’re all not at your best. Taking legal action will be additionally stressful and will cost money and time. Another thing that would cost money and time is selling the house and moving somewhere else. In the interest of your mental health, you should probably discuss this first, which path to follow. And although it is cynical, you also need to factor in that this problem will resolve itself naturally, probably within the next decade.

Neighbourhood disputes are not great. Your home should be your castle and somebody is shooting cannonballs at it. I’ve seen one case in my parent’s friend group that started with a fence encroaching on the other property, more than a decade of lawyers going back and forth, accusations of tyres being slashed, police calls for any minor infraction. This can consume people. Don’t get consumed.

Is this a bad use of so-called AI? Yes. Is this illegal? I’m going to say no. One of the reasons why Google tried this is because in various markets they’ve been dragged to court or coerced to fund news initiatives because they used snippets from publishers in their search results word-for-word. A not insignificant number of publishers has been lobbying pretty hard against them for giving you their headline and a couple of phrases as a snippet. Those publishers are dumb if you ask me but they were able to bend laws to their will and limit the usefulness of the link, the cornerstone of the internet. So you can sort of understand their motivation why they would try this. And it was only a test from what I’ve heard. So bash Google for all the truly evil shit they’re up to. This issue is dumb but not really worth the outrage.

Yes, the introduction of an individual, ethical “veto” came after the formation of national militaries like we know them today. There is built in tension to introduce a right to disobey into a system that otherwise demands obedience to function. It’s also hard to grasp as a concept even for the better educated. It’s fucked up. These days I’m thinking more and more about the adage that morale is something you need to be able to afford. And I understand every sergeant who feels like they don’t have any morale money to spend when ordered, say, to fire on shipwrecked drug smugglers. You piss off your boss and before you know it you’re dishonorably discharged back to the poverty stricken area you tried to get away from. Also, left-leaning liberals are a minority in a profession that practices how to kill people. There is so much gray there.

I say I understand the hypothetical sergeant in their moral life dilemma. As far as my respect is concerned, I can be totally black and white about this though.

The pessimistic take is none of this will matter because the US is moving further away from its constitutional order into a 21st century version of fascism. The military will be ridden of the morale “veto” and sworn to obey the leader no matter what. The optimistic take sees the current cult/fascistoid leadership edged out in 3-7 years and we will mostly see the homeopathic punishment I mentioned before. If we’re lucky, a tightening of the rules under which circumstances and with whose authority military units of any kind can be mobilized in peacetime within the US.

These names tend to be attached to them after the fact. I imagine there were a few Leonardos or Johannesses roaming about at their time so much like Alexander became The Great to set him apart from all other Alexanders, these names are scribes’ and historians’ shorthand to make clear which Leo or Joe you were talking about. And a few centuries of historical telephone later they seem to fit perfectly in our first name/last name system. Which in western Europe really only became officially standardized with the Code Civil from our friend Napoleon.

Or where they were from: da Vinci, Gutenberg. The Bible also doesn’t have a lot of action in China where last names were a thing before Jesus.

Soldiers have the right and the duty to resist illegal orders. I reserve respect for those who abide by that. Blind respect leads to blind eyes to when they eff up. And this American blind respect for active service members is so paradoxical in the face of how most veterans get treated.

The US military has survived the hot phase of the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And it probably should have taken more damage as an institution after each of these. It will survive 47 as well. Long drawn out procedures will meter out homeopathic doses of wrist slaps for most involved minus a handful of high profile scapegoats.

[Icey breath] No.

You can take your gaslight and shove it up your Baader-Meinhof-Effect!

Somebody took shots from the air of her home. She tried to get them removed from the public sphere. That caused headlines and as a result more people saw them attached to these news stories than ever would have if she hadn’t made an issue out of it.

Didn’t google, didn’t read the other comments.

I can see dead people.

I don’t think it would be weird. It’s up to them if they accept or not. I would just suggest you make parallel plans as well to meet new people. A hobby group, a book club, etc.

I think there are two general (human) media preferences at work: “if it bleeds, it ledes” superceded by which deaths are more extraordinary. So soldiers murdered in peacetime is noteworthy. They could’ve become accountants but chose a career where there is a real and high risk of death. Btw I fear it’s that death math that made medical professionals drop out of noteworthiness post-pandy, i.e. the threat is real but the risk has gone down again. I think children dying generally of tragic circumstances will be noteworthy. Nurses contracting AIDS or non-famous people dying of natural causes become less noteworthy. And I use noteworthy here as what they chose to cover in their newsrooms. They have financial interests to consider as well, which brings us back to “if it bleeds.”

The American filter generally erases many “mundane” gun deaths from visibility. Either people are so numb it doesn’t register as the tragedy that it is or it doesn’t get covered. There are plenty of places on earth where a single gunshot fired in anger that would make headlines.

There is a worldwide blindness to traffic deaths. We have just accepted that this is how many people die. So if something more interesting happens elsewhere, the t-boned accountant on the way to Walmart just gets dropped.

So there are a number of factors that influence what makes the news or not. The list goes on.

I would also say that media coverage is not prescriptive for who you should feel empathy for. We cannot all feel all the tragedies on this planet at once. We’d go mad. You pick and choose as a defense mechanism. So if you don’t feel that much empathy for these national guardsmen, I kind of get it. If you don’t like how much media coverage it’s getting, I can definitely understand that. The problem is just that when you say this out loud you open yourself up to criticism, like: you don’t feel for the people who died while sworn to defend your freedom! What about children and nurses? That’s just whataboutism! Etc. So I would suggest you follow your own heart and change your media consumption when it bothers you. Or you’ll end up in a culture war debate about whose lives matter more.

You don’t show him the stupidity of his ways by sleeping with that lady. You either find a way to confront him about that. Or you unattach yourself from this toxic person by finding other, better friends. Frankly, I would give him a piece of my mind and then find other friends anyway.

I don’t think I’m leaning too far out this window when I say: no, there isn’t an optimal size. It depends on so many factors. How many people? Is this urban or rural? What’s there neighborhood like? Facilities, public transport, doctors, grocery stores, etc.? What’s the crime rate like? How long is the commute to work? People have different priorities and make different choices as a result.

It’s not that clear really. His official titles would’ve been president and chancellor and he only got one of those in a manner the Weimar constitution legally envisioned. So the system, by which we would decide what an official title is today, was abused and then suspended all together. The title “der Führer” was basically a google translate from “il duce” in Italy and is not entirely honorific because he was leader of the Nazi party first. And he continues to be referred to by this semi-unofficial, semi-honorific title even in history books today and they don’t always bother to disambiguate or add that they mean it sarcastically. So while Grok should be shot into space. And Nazi saluting Melon Usk deserves to be under this much scrutiny and more and can otherwise go eff himself as far as I’m concerned. The Ockham’s razor for this gaff tells me the LLM just regurgitated book knowledge and nobody bothered to filter this with 2025 sensibilities. Not great but also more of a storm in a teacup. This won’t make the top ten of atrocious things coming from the Melon.

I was also looking for a word other than ‘honorific.’ I find it has a positive connotation and should not apply to the titles of such infamous individuals as Hitler or Mussolini. But I could not come up with anything snappy.

I think the telephone sort of fits. It’s attributed to Bell but that’s mainly because he wiggled his way into a US patent before his competition. The telephone has many fathers though: Bourseul, Manzetti, Reis - just to name three. The latter is also the father of the word telephone but died before it took off. There were many engineers tinkering so if Bell hadn’t taken the crown, another person would have done it.

Bonus answer: penicillin. Alexander Flemming. A lucky, accidental discovery. If mold hadn’t gotten sloppily into his cultures we might all have died of the plague or something nice like that.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Trusting judges is not uniquely American. You’ll find similar processes on the continent across the channel. The hurdles of who can sue and under which circumstances may differ. The appointment of judges is often less politicized. I think the UK is the unique case here and I believe that’s because by and large there isn’t a written constitution, at the very least not in the same way as in the US or France or Poland. Supreme courts are there as a check on whether or not laws conform to constitutional values and have the power to overrule a legislature when it passes laws that don’t. It’s not an “upper hand” deal, it’s checks and balances.

The American legal system is not great. I don’t know the details of the case you mentioned. One bad decision doesn’t mean the whole system needs to be abolished. If that were so I’d like to have a word with the UK’s highest court on what constitutes a woman.