It’s a monarchy… So yeah…

Is this the same Bob Ballard that found the Titanic and the Bismark?

This is the way.

Command statement = an action

Question statement = a status

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

I heard a hypothesis that the first human made consciousness will be an AI algorithm designed to monitor and coordinate other AI algorithms which makes a lot of sense to me.

Our consciousness is just the monitoring system of all our bodies subsystems. It is most certainly an emergent phenomenon of the interaction and management of different functions competing or coordinating for resources within the body.

To me it seems very likely that the first human made consciousness will not be designed to be conscious. It also seems likely that we won’t be aware of the first consciousnesses because we won’t be looking for it. Consciousness won’t be the goal of the development that makes it possible.

Russian assassination are pretty clear. Anyone with half a brain can put the pieces together, but there is just enough plausible deniability that there cannot be direct retaliation legally or politically. It is a clear threat but just barely veiled enough to avoid legitimate retaliatory action via legal or international responses.

This is such a stupid headline. It gives no context for that number. Is that big or small compared to other years? Is it big compared to other countries’s military contractors? What does ‘made’ mean? Is this revenue or profit?

It’s obviously intended to make us outraged because it’s a big number, but the article actually said it went down by 3% last year. Why wasn’t that the headline?

This whole article feels very click-baity to me.

This is an interesting take that some institutions have interest in keeping a slow and low level conflict going indefinitely. I have to admit I haven’t heard or considered this perspective. Most of the evidence provided though can quite easily be described by pure reactionary measures to the situation though. The examples provided like grain and oil speculation do not require a conspiracy of interests prolonging the conflict to explain why we saw those markets respond that way.

I do t doubt that some groups could benefit from a prolonged conflict, but I don’t see any direct evidence from your post, just a narrative that implies it’s possible. I think it’s a great idea to pursue this line of thinking, but I’m not personally convinced at this point.

Fantastic post, even though I don’t agree with your conclusions!