CharonY

I believe that the US contributed about 40% of all the funds for the Ukraine. Assuming that this stops, the remaining partners would need to almost double their efforts, just to keep things the same. Which might not be enough if the US decides to lift sanctions on Russia (though I am not sure how much impact the current ones have). At least there seems to be universal support, the question is only if additional help materializes and how fast.

Well, in addition to standing up to Russia, one can add standing up to the US. As per the NY times: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010019918/trump-zelensky-vance-ukraine.html?smid=url-share Pretty insane. Or normal for this administration, which apparently still thinks that they are doing reality TV. I hope the Europeans step up.

I will just throw in here that Dark Ages is misleading misnomer for a variety of reasons and especially the contrast to enlightenment (which was developed yet later than the first mentioning of the dark ages) is more of a pop narrative rather than something that is supported by historians. A good overview regarding the early Middle Ages that is very accessible (I am told) is Powers and Thrones by Dan Jones.

Also, it wouldn't really matter. Let's assume that folks just caved in and now suddenly decide to ignore civil rights issues, then there would be something else they would disagree on. And the only way to address that would be to have exactly the same social outlook. At which point we would only have on one party and full Gleichschaltung. Which, presumably is the goal. From this perspective it is a bit silly to state that folks were driven to the far right because of woke or whatever. Because it minimizes the actual reason. Folks want a society with inequality, as long as they have a shot of being on top of others. We do see it with how folks use anti-abortion laws as cudgels to reduce women's rights and put them in diminished and increasingly dangerous roles. At some point we really should start calling a spade a spade and not pretend that folks are unwittingly doing things.

I think folks are talking about slightly different things. If I understand correctly, Sensei's argument is if information is fully encrypted and has no gaps in any form, it basically does not exist for most intents and purposes. What TheVat is arguing is more about the principles of access up when there is a cause. This would potentially provide access to things that are accessible- perhaps account name, for example. And while encrypted info could theoretically fall under such court orders, it would not be feasible to access it. And potentially because of that it would also not be possible to ascertain whether that data would fall under a court order (unlessthe order is very broad, which might or might not be lawful, depending on jurisdiction).

The brain consumes about 20% of the energy budget as part of base metabolism. Higher brain activity (e.g. writings exams) have not shown to change the base consumption of oxygen much.

I think the most straightforward way to address OP is to look at the lawsuit and check what he has been charged with. I don't think that arguing constitutional principles are particular helpful, except to test whether the specific laws he was charged with are indeed unconstitutional. The wiki page is somewhat unhelpful as they mostly reference multiple charges including complicity and negligence. However, I have not seen any deeper analyses suggesting how these are defined under French law. The only thing I have seen is the issue of encryption, which Sensei mentioned. Here it appears that Telegram does not have automated end-to-end encryption, it has less robust standards and requires manual opt-in, which apparently was not always done and potentially invited scrutiny from law enforcement. But again, I have only seen speculative articles. One would probably need to see how it plays out in court.

Yes, a Bachelor degree is an introductory higher degree. It can lead to a science career (usually via grad school), but often, as in this case, it does not.

Going a bit back to OP, I think we should clearly establish that Musk is not a trained engineer or scientist. He just runs business that uses or intersects with them. This suggest that he should have decent abilities in running large business. However, in cases where his leadership is more transparent (e.g. Twitter), it seems that his handling of the business is rather heavy-handed an inept. It might make sense, as one could argue that Twitter was a vanity/propaganda project from the get-go. However, the ineptness coming to light with how DOGE is determining efficiency and is handling firing folks does not inspire confidence that they know what they are doing. This could, of course, could merely suggest that the overall goal is really to benefit his companies and burn the rest. But what is clear that we do not even see an attempt of demonstrating expertise anymore.

Not sure whether that is really being under someone's thumb thing or just part of the liberation of the poor multi-billionaire class.

Well, yes I do use the command line frequently, but I didn't have to deal with networks for quite a while now. But it is mostly because I got used to it from working with SPARC systems and later linux (mostly for bioinformatic work). Many tools I use are only running from command line, but I take your point, this is not how most folks would use windows. I always tell myself that I am going to install linux onto all my old servers but then I never do and just have huge paperweights. Quite possibly- I honest cannot recall. There was an order to things that did not make a lot sense to me when I tried. If there is really just a tool that you need with it, you could either just make a clean linux install, or perhaps even try a portable version to see if it suits your need. Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Always comes at a surprise whether you can actually use the hardware you got. Or try a quick fix you find on some fora which takes hours and then breaks something else. Or not.

! Moderator Note While the OP is an invitation to some level of speculation, all are based on mainstream chemistry and there is literature that one can use as foundation. As long as the scope does not change it should be perfectly fine to stay here.

Linux on older laptops have been a nightmare, usually related to driver issues. That being said, I never found Linux to be a good platform if you intend to only use is it as a graphical OS. The advantages are elsewhere (unless something radical has changed) and quite a bit of it is is that the command line is much more flexible than the Windows command line. Dual booting has been a bit of a hassle, too and while I got it to work on desktops without any issues, it worked maybe on half of my laptops. Usually the issue was on the windows side and I had to re-install it.

From a business perspective no. I am not sure whether 30 million were indeed saved by layoffs, but Twitter used to be evaluated around 30 billion (and was bought for more) but by 2024 estimates but it below 1 billion. On the other hand, he is able to use it as a personal propaganda platform and has given Nazis and other folks a home. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020 So for him it may have been worth it. Well, in many cases you really just have to follow what is happening. There are heaps of lawsuits, and at the end we can see whether the actions passed the minimum requirement of being lawful. Also there were repeated reports that folks were fired and then they struggled to re-hire them as they did not realize that their roles were essential. If it happens once it is really bad. But there are so many reports that is more like clown car situation. The issue is that even for a company this could be disastrous, but since federal workers render essential and in some cases life saving services, making mistakes like that are really, really bad. Also, if you break things, it is way more expensive to put it back together. When all is done, I will take bets that the overall costs will be way higher than whatever they will save. Especially if we consider cost to the public, in terms of health, safety and essential services. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/usda-accidentally-fired-officials-bird-flu-rehire-rcna192716 https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/20/science/epa-layoffs-trump/?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter&utm_campaign=Globe_Twitter

There is a big difference in what folks claim to have done and what they have done. If you always claim more than you do, you are wandering into con territory.

That is pretty much known not to work. And no, the truth is going to lose out eventually in the social media landscape as the truth is usually less emotionally engaging. And emotions is what ultimately fuels and monetizes social media. Traditional media had its own problems being largely concentrated in few powerful hands, but now their role is further diminished. Information flow is driven by individuals and their emotions now. And a big part of the problem is that I have yet to see good approaches to address that. Most attempts (e.g., better education) are still based on (IMO) outdated assumptions. I feel that this line of inquiry deserves a separate discussion thread, though.

Yeah, the lionization of folks was (IMO) already tasteless then. And as it turns out I have little evidence for genius level intelligence and only some against- which is my broader point. Given lack of evidence, an assumption of average or above average is usually a good starting point. The examples I have seen of him discussing a variety of topics (though they might be biased) do not provide any evidence to suggest otherwise. Now talking about his broader life history, from what I read it does seem that a) his family wealth has provided him with ways to explore opportunities and b) he does have a knack to convince folks to give him money. But again, I don't see that that this necessarily requires high sophistication. For example, Trump was able to convince people to invest in him by pretending to be richer, in part by impersonating a fictional publicist to boost himself. I.e. being shameless goes a long way in grifting. What is even worse, in areas where he claims to have expertise (e.g. in programming, as that was where he initial made seed money), he really seems to flounder. That leaves soft skills on the table, such as leadership and communications. He might be above average in both, though there is a lot of celebrity cult going on there where it is really difficult to figure out the actual achievements. Not that any of that is terribly important, was we see clear ineptness played out in plain sight. This is not to say that geniuses (of whatever sort) always display competence. Often, expertise is found within a narrow range and whatever he is doing now is clearly outside of it.

From one of the links regarding his upcoming biography: It seems that there is really no evidence of an actual test.

Occam's razor, if there is no evidence of genius, why assume it? There are currently dozens of lawsuits exactly trying to stop it. Going through courts is a slow process. A big issue is that he is being used as a wrecking ball by the GOP and a disposable at that. If things go wrong (which they likely will, given the lack of competence), they can always say that he was just an outside advisor and try to wash the stench off him. If for some reasons his actions prove to be liked by the public, they can wear the success, too.

There is still no evidence of scientific acumen. Also, he is not working as a scientist. You got jerk and wrecking things right, though. In other words you merely use the shaky moniker of genius to justify his bad sides, including being a Nazi.

Fair enough and expanding perspectives is certainly not a bad thing.

! Moderator Note As noted, please provide a summary of some other basis for discussion, instead of pointing towards a pdf. As major elements do not seem to follow mainstream physics I have moved it to speculations. Please take a moment to read some of the guidelines for posting and discussing speculations.

I think my perspective is a bit different from yours and the author's. I am less worried about decisions and quality of individual politicians (which, I must add, is certainly worrisome in itself), but I focus more on the overall system and the population. I think one assumption that quite a few moderate politicians have is that once the folks like Trump and Musk are gone there will be reckoning and subsequent to a status quo before they came into power. A kind of of normalcy, if you will. However, I do think we are in a new normal situation. I have ranted on modern information systems quite a bit a few times, so I will spare you that, but I will say that the current system and the prevalent misinformation is fuel for especially radical right wing ideologies which have gained tremendous power over the last decade. I.e., I think it goes way beyond Trump his cronies and a bunch of scared, self-serving sycophants. First, we will have folks that support it out of fear, then, we will have folks do the same thing, but with conviction. Some of these elements we have seen played out with the tea party, and I think the trend has accelerated (and again, is broader than just the North American continent). If we do not deal with it on a systemic level, I fear that there will be no reversal of these agenas.

I think I have seen it, and read excerpts but it looked all very handwavy to me. I.e. it didn't really inspire me to invest into it. There was little science that I could recall. I found it mostly trying to justify his perspective, which would be fine, but lacking scientific rigor to actually bring something new to the table. It seems to be heavy with regard to wondering about stuff, which is fine, really. But it is light on the actual intellectual work, which is a red flag to me, especially if someone in any way claims to revolutionize something.

Yeah, no wonder that he is against pronouns. He likely just doesn't understand the concept of language.