Now he claims Ukraine doing it in an attempt to smear a country under severe distress.
It was instantly debunked by security professionals, rather claiming USA, Vietnam, Brazil first and foremost which also sounds like a more probable trio than a state sponsored attack from a country desperate to regain American support.
It was indeed probably rather a group; Dark Storm Team has already claimed responsibility.
Elon Musk says a lot of things. Is it really a cyberattack, or is the site just experiencing an outage due to an over-worked and understaffed team who were told to move fast and break things?
Well I asked him to provide any evidence at all to back up why his brain came to conclusion that it did. In the absence of any evidence, the natural conclusion is that he just made it up.
I did not make a claim; I asked a simple question: is the Twitter outage a result of a cyberattack or is it due to a technical failure?
I asked this question for a few reasons:
- Elon Musk is an inveterate liar.
- things often fail at his companies (see the most recent space x launch).
- he is a known tyrant of a boss, so his employees are unlikely to disagree with him publicly.
- he has demonstrated at the so-called doge that he will move fast and break things.
- he often looks to blame others when things go wrong. For example, just this weekend he said that 5 people (who just happen to be Jewish) are funding the Tesla Takedown movement, denying that it could be an organic movement.
These are just a few of the reasons that I’m questioning Musk. I assume everything he says is a lie until I get evidence to the contrary.
good rule of thumb is - when you hear/read something musk says, immediately assume the exact opposite is true and work from there. he is no longer capable of telling the truth even if it is to his own benefit :)
I don’t know, none of this looks like evidence to me, just a series of things he’s said that didn’t come true. I would interpret a lot of these as optimistic predictions that didn’t come true, not outright lies.
A lie is something you say that you know is false. You can predict you’ll be able to do something, try and fail, and I would consider it a lie.
You could also build a website listing tons of things he predicted that did actually come true.
But honestly man whatever. I am trying to discuss in good faith and all that happens is downvotes into oblivion. I am trying to provide substantive answers and discussion in good faith. This site obviously does not allow for unpopular opinions.
I just hope you know that you are not the good guys, you are not on the right side of history, and you are every bit as bigoted as the people you think you’re fighting against.
He said that it is true that the recent California wildfires were part of the "globalist plot to wage economic warfare and deindustrialize the United States". That demonstrates that he has become uncoupled from reality.
He threw two, not zero, Nazi salutes. You calling _me_ a bigot for refusing to believe anyone associated with that place? Okay, if you must. I can live with that.
In what ways have they shown to be a phenomenal team? Genuinely curious.
I've seen their embed break on pretty much every site that embeds Twitter feeds, accessibility of their site has taken a massive hit, Twitter's 2024 Q4 revenue is down to less than half of its 2021 Q4 peak,[0] and now this...
Are you referring to any specific accomplishments?
X has shipped way more new features on the past year than in the rest of its existence.
Musk famously reduced head count by like ... 80%? To me, that speaks of a very capable team. But yeah, downvote this one as well, the truth is evident anyway, lol.
I never downvoted you but it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. X has definitely not shipped way more new features in the past year than the rest of existence.
I don't even know how you would quantify that but features are only possible when you have a good architecture (incl. infrastructure and well-thought out interfaces) already in place. That kind of stuff takes years and was done by the team before Musk even took over.
I also feel you're completely discounting the regressions. Twitter has suffered search engine discoverability; the API has completely broken in their attempt to monopolize it; and the entire accessibility team was axed leading to a very broken user experience for those relying on screen readers. Maybe those features just don't matter to you but in an attempt to quantify "number of features shipped" they should definitely be accounted for somehow
Well Musk lied about exactly this sort of thing last year, blaming a non-existant DDoS attack that turned out to just be poor engineering on their part. Given his massive track record of lies on all sorts of topics anything he says on twitter should be assumed false unless proven otherwise.
So I know this is not a popular opinion on this site but the only solution being offered by the other side seems to be the meat grinder approach. Basically continue letting both sides throw their men and (and also US taxpayer) money into the conflict until one side gives up or runs out of men.
I am fundamentally anti-war. We can and should compromise on this. There’s a reason the neocons are aligned with the left on it. The military industrial complex is profiting massively, big banks are securing massive land grants to help “rebuild”, and meanwhile both countries are depopulating themselves.
What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
What compromise do you suggest? So far what trump has been offering is "give us a bunch of stuff and get nothing in return".
Compromise would be a peace deal that actually guarantees Ukraine's future safety (e.g. NATO membership or nuclear weapons) without further compromising their sovereignty (forcing them to give up more territory or recognize Russian territorial claims).
We don't have the ability to compel Ukraine to take a bad deal, and if we did it would be wrong to.
Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. We basically have a WW1 situation where both sides are grinding themselves down and the only thing the left can bring themselves to support is continuing the conflict.
Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the good guys team as much as you think you are.
The position "any compromise that ends the war is acceptable" is a nonsensical idea that gives agressors the ability to take any territory they want from weaker nations. Invade weaker nation, take some land, then force them to surrender to 'save lives'. Do you not see where this absolutist idea leads?
If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win.
If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.
We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.
> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney.
That's a fallacy.
It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something controversial that everybody disagrees with, like initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in this case, everybody across the political spectrum who understands the situation and its context, agrees that it is vital to defend Ukraine.
Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have been better than 5 years of destruction?
I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. Being on the same team as a famous warmonger when it comes to choosing whether or not to continue funding an endless war is a decent HINT. It should make you take a step back and really examine all the evidence about whether you’re actually on the right side of history (you’re probably not).
This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening.
This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear here.
> This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2.
Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1 by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.
I'm not sure ad hominem is as convincing as you think it is. "Any compromise at all" is a very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.
Ad hominem: “Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.”
I said aligning yourself with a famous war monger is a good hint that you may not be a good guy and that it is a good reason for reflection. I did not attack OP’s character or motivations.
>very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.
Likewise it is even more easy to be cavalier about continuing to fund a war and depopulating entire nations when you’re not the one being conscripted to fight and die.
It’s easy to be a war monger when you’re not the one doing the dying.
This also puts you on the same side as Neville Chamberlain, so.
There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories.
We tried doing literally nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, and we tried doing basically nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. How did that work out? He invaded another god damned country. He really thought it was going to be a three-day operation; he thought he was going to be welcomed in Kiev. Should we have done nothing, forever?
“What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!”
If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against someone, they’re probably bad news.
I appreciate I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to mercilessly crush the aggressor state that invaded and annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their responses to an obvious existential threat.
Russia broke the last ceasefire. Another ceasefire without material guarantees of security for Ukraine is pointless for Ukraine to sign, as there's no reason to believe it'll "bring the meat grinder to an end".
Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when they kept shouting over him. And what at least one reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.
Although I agree that Trump's desire to end the war without any Russian concessions is foolhardy, Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons on its borders. Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse. None other than George Kennan, the Russian-speaking architect of Cold War containment, wrote an op-ed about it then...
>Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons for Ukraine.
Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine.
>Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse.
There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed.
Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.
My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004...
You make a good point. The EU/NATO expansion was deliberately intended to hem Russia in, and Russia's actions are at least partly in response to that.
However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing.
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
I don’t agree much with Machiavelli for one, but more importantly he and Sun Tzu lived during a time when war was very common and just happened all the time with little provocation. In the post WW2 world the goal should be to avoid war at all costs and achieve goals by other means.
I'd argue war is as common now as in the times of Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. Even after WW2 and only considering US boots on the ground, how many military conflicts have there been?
There are five major ones:
Korean War (1950-1953)
Vietnam War (1955-1975)
Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Iraq War (2003-2011)
If you count proxy wars, it wouldn't be such a stretch to say we've been fighting almost continuously since we dropped the bomb.
Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff.
Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all.
Please explain how a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age is not a legitimate threat to all of Europe but especially Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Ukraine, such that NATO expansion is fully legitimated.
You can't blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression (and call it "threatening") while at the same time literally admitting that Russia is strongly nationalist and would love to reclaim all of its former territories (which is why all of those countries desperately wanted to join NATO).
Fuck dude, Russia is the largest country on earth (see: expansionism) and has the first or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They have no right to feel "threatened" by their smaller neighbors banding together.
Europe is as much Russia’s historical sphere of influence as the western hemisphere is ours. From the time of the Monroe Doctrine to the Cuban missle crisis and beyond, we have not tolerated any foreign incursion in North or South America—even to the point of removing democratically-elected socialists and installing pro-US dictators such as Chile’s Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet. Don’t be fooled by our own propaganda.
Seen in that light, a US strategy of overt and steady NATO encroachment combined with covert action to foment rebellion in multiple ex-Soviet states isn’t far fetched. And even if we didn’t secretly fund the latter, a paranoid Putin certainly wouldn’t doubt it and would react accordingly.
The attempt to rewrite history into "foreign encroachment" is either utterly ignorant of the actual facts, or just bad faith trolling.
The reasons why Eastern Europe was very passionate about joining NATO are clear from their history. And getting accepted into the organization was a major and very widely documented struggle. The Polish government went as far as threatening to sink Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 by urging Polish-Americans to vote for Republicans unless Clinton agreed to admitting Poland into NATO.
Now, people like you are trying to depict this as some sort of grand anti-Russian masterplan laid out in Washington. Nobody, not even Russians from that era, support this fringe story.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Here are the facts of NATO encroachment from the fall of the Berlin wall to the annexation of Crimea:
1. Feb 1990: The US, through West German chancellor Helmut Kohl, hints at freezing NATO’s borders in order to secure German reunification.
"Kohl thus found himself in a complicated position as he prepared to meet with Gorbachev on February 10, 1990. He had received two letters, one on either end of his flight from West Germany to the Soviet Union, the first from Bush and the second from Baker, and the two contained different wording on the same issue. Bush’s letter suggested that NATO’s border would begin moving eastward; Baker’s suggested that it would not.
According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany.”
European motivations for joining NATO are obvious and beyond debate: what formerly war-torn nation wouldn't want shelter under our nuclear umbrella?
But while whether or not gradual, but deliberate NATO encroachment was a Neocon stratagem may be debatable to you and me, I doubt Putin, a paranoid autocrat who considers the fall of the USSR one of history's great calamaties, looking at these facts, would have the least question whatsoever.
Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking this was obvious, but... their opinion is utterly irrelevant; only one person's opinion matters here and that's Putin's.
Exactly my point: this is the story that the current dictator is spinning to justify his crimes.
It's also funny how Putin now lies about how invading Ukraine is all about NATO, when in the first few years of the war, Russia denied any involvement and claimed that the tens of thousands of unmarked soldiers with Russian tanks, artillery and anti-air systems capable of shooting down high-altitude airliners were just disgruntled secessionist Ukrainians fighting against nazis in Kyiv with weapons from military surplus stores. According to Putin, it was a civil war in Ukraine, and Russia had nothing to do with it.
Please clarify how NATO encroachment is non-threatening to a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age.
That's exactly the point: almost all of Eastern Europe rushed into NATO to prevent becoming unwilling participants in another "golden age of the Russian empire". NATO is a massive pain in the ass for those who dream of enslaving the peoples of Europe, and not a problem at all for those who are free from this sick desire.
One of the pre-Putin foreign ministers of Russia has maintained for decades that NATO offers free security on Russia's western border. Its rules, especially those related to civilian oversight of military affairs, ensure that NATO members remain stable and predictable. The mutual defense guarantee acts as a moderating force that reduces the likelihood of unexpected moves by a single country. What normal country wouldn't want to border a military alliance dominated by overly cautious pacifists?
Sure, the mutual-defense guarantee can be a moderating force, or it can be a ticket to rapid escalation (case in point WW1) and, potentially therefore, nuclear war.
The fact that the Cold War ended peacefully, and with the USSR‘s dissolution to boot, is one of history’s great miracles. With the world’s return to its default multi-polar state, we really shouldn’t press our luck.
Give Russia and China their spheres of influence while we protect our own. The tail risk of nuclear war just isn’t worth whatever gains Neocons promise. After all, how did their Iraqi and Afghan experiments in democracy turn out?
Russia already has its sphere of influence, but it is rapidly shrinking because aligning with Russia offers neither peace nor prosperity nor anything else of value. Politically, economically, scientifically, and culturally, it is a dead end. Russia is not the first country to slip into irrelevance and struggle to accept the loss of its influence, and no amount of temper tantrums has ever changed that for anyone.
The UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Mongolia, and many others were vast empires at some point in history. They have all had to adopt a self-image that reflects their true political, cultural, and economic weight in the present world. Russian ambitions are too detached from reality, given that they account for only a percentage or two of global GDP and population, and are in a downward trend.
I don't disagree about Russia's prospects. China, too, is facing a demographic collapse it will take generations to mend. But the nuclear arsenal of both countries makes this irrelevant for policy now.
The only reason for them to not accept NATO membership of a neighbor is if they're planning to invade that neighbor.
Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion, except this one will start closer to home and be better planned.
What relevance does Ukraine joining NATO, a defensive alliance, have to Russia? (Unless they are planning to attack again, which would mean the "peace deal" isn't actually worth the paper it's signed on, and is just a way for Russia to regroup for their next invasion.)
Whether you call it "defensive" or not, NATO—and the arms race it and the Warsaw Pact fostered—directly led to the Soviet Union's collapse. Recall that JFK almost started WW3 when the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba. NATO on Russia's borders isn't all that different to them.
Except there is no reason for a compromise. Russia invaded Ukraine, they're free to withdraw any time they like. I wonder how anti-war you'd be if another country decided half of yours suddenly belonged to them.
Countries all over the world should want to help stop an aggressor before it expands and becomes powerful enough to attack them. It's a no brainer, and you have plenty of examples throughout history.
As things stand now, 5 years from now USA could become overrun with russian mobs and oligarch running rampant, and EU faces the real possibility of another continental conflict. I don't think many people around the world are going to enjoy that scenario.
There is absolutely a reason for compromise. Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
The current situation is very similar to the trench warfare of WW1. Despite there being a clear initiator of WW1, BOTH sides absolutely had a huge reason to compromise. Over 8 million lives were lost, the reason to compromise was saving those 8 million lives.
> Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
And they are. They want the people back that Russia abducted, and the people who still live in the occupied territories. They can't bring back the dead obviously, but they can fight for the living. And for the future.
To understand Ukraine's will to fight, you need to understand that they have lived under Moscow's yoke for generations. Their grandparents lived through the Holodomor, their parents lived under Soviet oppression. The current generation has known 30 years of freedom. And now they're faced with the possibility of their children living under Moscow rule again.
I empathize with your opinion Dig1t. War is horrible and meat grinders are especially so.
But when a victimized population like Ukraine decides it wants to keep fighting. Especially given:
> Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
Then you gotta ask yourself:
Given they would rather die than suffer the consequences of a compromise.
Then maybe they know something about the consequences of that compromise that you and I can’t? and if so, maybe we should continue trusting the victims to not compromise ?
You cannot compromise with an aggressor, it encourages them to be more aggressive. Being anti-war to the point of allowing allies to be overrun by totalitarians is just foolishness, and a great way to create more war.
My understanding is that Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for an agreement Wirth Russia to not be invaded? If that is the case and Russia invaded anyway, then what kind of compromise can you have with a country that breaks any agreement they sign?
I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options left on the table.
It’s bizarre that anyone would try to spin opposition to war for war’s sake as some kind of obligation to never fight regardless of the provocation or context.
Yes, yes, I am opposed to punching random people on the street. It is bad manners. That does not mean I have to stand by and watch someone else get attacked for no reason.
Left - at least the moderate left in italy, I don't know what kind of American left you're talking about - is anti war in an anti _offensive_ war sense, not against a defensive war or against defending another more or less allied country from being invaded by another country
I am not sure of course, but I guess the same would be true of other similar center left parties in europe
If Russia was allowed to annex Ukraine with no military resistance... would this not certainly encourage more invasions/annexations in the future between various countries? Would this not result in more violence in the long run?
Einstein was famously a pacifist, opposed to the concept of war. Many leftists used to be aligned with this as well.
We are funding a meat grinder that has no sign of victory for either side anywhere in sight. This has been going on for years now. Long enough where we need to consider a diplomatic compromise, we can’t just keep pumping money into another country waiting for enough men to die, it is fundamentally evil.
I know people feel that they are morally justified in funding the conflict forever because Russia is the aggressor. But at a certain point it becomes evil not to seek an end to the killing. Have you watched videos of the horrific things that are happening over there with drone warfare? How can you watch that and say “it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”?
Pacifism is good insofar as one should avoid starting wars. What you are arguing for is prostration, reflexive submission to any non-pacifist actor. All your posts in this thread are bemoaning the horrors of war and comparing it to a meatgrinder, but all saying that the solution is for Ukraine to capitulate. What consequences should befall Russia?
Victory for Ukraine is surviving to the next day. Do you really think funding them is "fundamentally evil"? They don't have a choice about fighting. If they lose, Ukraine will be brutally "Russified". Their language and culture will be banned. Their poets and patriots killed. Their children will be brainwashed and turned into loyal soldiers for Putin's next war of conquest.
Nobody likes war, but letting your country be subjugated by an evil dictator is worse.
Russia is not acting in good faith, so a compromise doesn't help. If both parties had legitimate grievances and acted in good faith, they could come to a peaceful lasting compromise. But instead, one nation aggressively invaded another with constantly shifting narratives for the reason why.
Those of us truly anti-war realize that allowing Ukraine to be punished/Ukrainians to be kidnapped for giving up their nuclear weapons will only lead to future wars and future nuclear proliferation, not less war..
Unfortunately, if we do not want to have a direct conflict with Russia, the next best thing is giving Ukraine massive amounts of weapons, arms, etc., and enabling them to retake their country.
Any alternative that allows Russian gains will only further cement the idea that wars of aggression can be worthwhile in the modern world, and this is the most horrendous conclusion possible for anyone actually anti-war.
The West has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and money, yet the Ukranians have made near-zero progress. They are incapable of retaking their country without direct intervention from NATO, which is not an option.
Everyone here needs to make an extra effort to assume good faith, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Otherwise we're just going to get in a downward spiral.
Trump offered a mineral deal that secure Ukrainian minerals for the US while offering absolutely nothing in return. He did so from a position of power since Ukrainian lives depend on continuing military aid to defend against an illegal war of aggression with the goal of exterminating his country. Unless he's identical to Putin Trump isn't even in a position to offer peace.
You cannot possibly imagine how disgusted people are by Trump and by statements like yours. It's just disgusting.
It absolutely offers something in return. It gives the US interests in Ukraine and in maintaining the status quo so we can access those minerals. Putin wants them for himself. This is a clever way to push back at Putin while also compromising on having NATO at Russia's doorstep. It also compensates the US for its generous spending on Ukraine's plight. NATO is over anyway because European countries cannot or will not contribute their share and frankly the US isn't threatened by Russia in the same way it was during the Cold War. I much prefer a bi or tri polar world to the Cold War.
You've just confirmed with a meandering, misleading paraphrase the same as what I've stated in the first place, that the US has offered nothing in return.
The ones wishing for peace most are the Ukrainians.
However the Ukrainians also want a country where they can live in peace. Not under Russian occupation, not in fear of Russia breaking the agreement, again. (After agreeing to Ukrainian souveranity while Ukraine gave up their Nukes, after agreeing to the Minsk Memorandum after occupying Crimea)
I'm with you. And we seem to be in the minority here. Setting Ukraine aside for the moment, what have the many US military conflicts—they were not "wars" because the last one Congress declared was during WW2—since WW2 achieved?
Excluding proxy wars for simplicity's sake and only counting those where we had boots on the ground, from our engagements in Korea to Afghanistan, how has the world become a better place?
Besides (arguably) Korea, it seems our blood and treasure could've been better spent.
You want a peace by Ukraine's capitulation, which would involve Ukraine handing over millions of Ukrainian citizens to Russia. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that haven't really thought this through but it's nevertheless disgusting, particularly the bullying of a foreign dignitary in the White House was disgusting and unprecedented in diplomacy.
Sorry I don't have any other word for it. It's disgusting behavior.
The only people who should be in charge of deciding when it's time to stop fighting are the Ukrainian people and their elected leaders. That's how democracy works. You should continue to support Ukraine with weapons together with the numerous allies you have, seek further alliance continue to pressure Russia with sanctions and isolation. Russian embassies should be closed, by the way.
Why? Because it's the morally right thing to do. It's as simple as that.
The Ukrainian leadership has suspended all elections. Polling indicates that Zelensky would almost certainly lose an election if one were held.
If you really care about the principles of democracy wouldn't you be in support of giving the people of Ukraine the chance to vote for leaders that would seek to end the war?
Also speaking of democracy, Trump campaigned on ending the Ukraine war and he solidly won the election, including the house, senate, and popular vote. Using diplomatic means to bring an end to the killing and an end to sending our taxpayer dollars to fund foreign wars is absolutely what the American people voted for.
The Ukrainian constitution prescribes that elections cannot be held during a war. One obvious reason is also that 20% of Ukraine are occupied and it's not possible to hold elections there. Similar decisions to postpone elections were made by other countries in distress, such as the United Kingdom during World War 2.
Zelensky has even offered to step down as a president in exchange for tangible security guarantees for his country, yet you people continue to parrot Russian propaganda. It's absolute insanity how brainwashed people are by this cheap Russian propaganda. Think before you write!
The primary thing which the US has given Ukraine is weapons designed and built during the Cold War for the explicit purpose of defending Europe against a Russian invasion.
When the President of the most powerful nation on Earth, repeatedly says:
* Canada should be annexed
* I'll use my powers to crush Canada's economy so they are forced to join the US
* I'll use my powers to disrupt trade, and influence others to not trade with Canada
* I want to conquer and take over other "things" as well (Panama Canal, Greenland)
And:
* Makes up stories about there being issues with immigrants and fentanyl from Canada, to put aside trade agreements using powers assigned for emergency use, by Congress, in 1977
* Executes orders about tariffs, inline with the above threats
* Makes up wild, unfounded numbers about trade deficits
* Other members of the the US government says "He's going to make you the 51st state" and "he's entirely serious"
* General discussion among many members of his party saying "We should annex Canada"
And when:
* That same president spreads false information, at one point claiming the Ukraine "started the war"
* Decides to give up the Ukraine to a country run by a dictator
* Tries to undermine other countries from helping the Ukraine
* Thinks Russia is an ally, and everything will be just fine via appeasement
Then I don't care what other Americans think, or say. I care that someone with immense power, and the capability to do these things, says he will. I care what the ruling party has said the goal is.
You speak of "serious people". Only a very unserious person would ignore all of the above. With respect, when you threaten a people with loss of their entire country, telling them they shouldn't take it serious is absolutely absurd.
Nothing else but what has been said is important. No excuses for "he won't do it". No "don't worry about it" is reasonable.
In the last couple of months, the US has entirely destroyed its relationship with Canada. It will literally take half a century to recover it, if ever.
You don't play with another nations security and autonomy. You don't joke about taking someone's country over.
And like it or not?
Your president is your face to the world, and he's doing these things, and there are sadly repercussions of all of us.
Yes, Trump is a gift to any cynical person trying to "both sides" Russia's war against Ukraine or China's extensive plans to invade Taiwan by saying "look, the U.S. threatens their neighbors too!"
The fact is, none of this talk has resulted in real steps towards action. And if you take seriously everything Trump says, you can draw any number of conclusions that aren't based in reality.
You're ignoring what I said, it's not just Trump talking.
And I reiterate, when it comes to the loss of nationhood, the requirement to go to war if that happens, Canadians cannot simply ignore direct threats.
Frankly, your words seem quite offensive to me. You're simply telling all 40 million of us to just ignore a threat to our very existence, because, oh well, who cares, it's obviously just noise.
Meanwhile as I said, it's not just Trump, but his party, cabinet, and others saying the goal is real.
How can I take you seriously, when you ignore that it's not just Trump?
That it's at least millions of Americans repeating and agreeing with these things?
You don't underestimate words with such dire consequences. Ever.
Yes it is. Where is the U.S. military mobilization to the northern border? Or against Panama or Greenland for that matter. You can't just invade a country, you need years of expensive logistical operations to move your troops and supply lines into place (the way Russia did before Ukraine and increasingly what China is doing against Taiwan).
So if we are to take Trump seriously, where is any evidence he is doing anything besides issuing wild threats for leverage in later trade talks?
> You don't underestimate words with such dire consequences.
Trump is dismantling the post world war 2 American led global order. I am taking this very seriously, I just don't tolerate people using Trump's statements as confirmation bias of their "The U.S. is just as bad" both side-isms. Or just downright celebrating the fall of the U.S. because they think a world where China and Russia do whatever they want is somehow better.
Global conflicts and wars of conquest by authoritarian states used to be normal, if we are returning to that era, we are all worse off.
Is this just a game of copycat? You are asserting the US is actually planning a war against Canada, now is the time to cite your sources and proof of that claim.
The two of you both broke the site guidelines super badly in this thread. Not cool.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future. I know how hard it is to extricate oneself, but the only worthwhile thing to do is just stop.
The two of you both broke the site guidelines super badly in this thread. Not cool.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, and please avoid tit-for-tat spats in the future. I know how hard it is to extricate oneself, but the only worthwhile thing to do is just stop.
No one wants peace, they want justice. But putting aside all that nonsense, this is a relatively cheap way to fuck with Russia, one of our main geopolitical adversaries. If Ukraine is willing to jump into the meat grinder, let's give Russia the push it needs to join them. Don't give up a winning position for no reason.
Ukraine offered an alternative approach. They are willing to compromise on territory - i.e. stop fighting over it, not give up the claim to it. What they want, and they've said it again and again, is a security guarantee for the future to prevent Russia invading again. Either membership of NATO or a specific treaty. This is their one goal beyond coming under the control of Russia during this specific war, not having to worry about being invaded again. If they don't get it then they're likely to start developing a nuclear deterrent (they've already indicated this and they probably have the capability).
Ok. Let's pretend this is what is done. Russia gets to keep all the land it took from Ukraine, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
Who's going to stop Russia from re-arming and building up its army only to launch another attack in 2-3 years? Who's going to prevent them from destabilizing Ukraine until it falls?
Russia won't stop until it has destroyed Ukraine, that much is certain. Russia only understands strength, and they won't stop until stopped by force.
But hey, peace is more important right? Maybe they should just take Ukraine, capture, torture, rape and murder all the people they deem as undesirables and convert it to another Russian oblast as it was once before. Then there will be peace.
I would imagine you would also lay down at your own home if someone breaks in and tries to rape and murder your family just for the sake of peace?
> What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
The left is still anti-war. But most people on the left have paid enough attention to Putin to know that surrendering to him is not going to bring peace.
This war didn't just start in 2022; Putin invaded Ukraine twice in 2014. He invaded Georgia in 2008. And very early on in his career, he completely demolished Chechnya. He's not a peace guy. And all those wars by Putin were rewarded, and so he continues. Now finally, people understand that giving Putin everything he wants is just going to make him want more and attack more.
In Russia, they're already talking about Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania and even Poland. The only way this will end is by stopping Putin.
The left didn't compromise with Hitler either. Surrendering to Hitler didn't bring anyone peace. Peace came only after defeating Hitler. And unfortunately, it's exactly the same with Putin. Except nobody is going to march on Moscow, because Putin has nukes. So the only way to stop him becomes letting him exhaust his country until it collapses. That sounds terrible, but Ukraine is actually willing and eager to be the anvil on which Russia destroys itself. All we need to do is continue to support Ukraine with everything they need and more.
I know it's terrible. You can blame Putin for that. But this may be the only way to put an end to Putin's bottomless aggression.
The (moderate) left was anti-oppression and anti-dictatorship. Sometimes you need to fight for that, but the goal remains a stable, egalitarian and peaceful society.
If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.
I don't think you should be down voted for opinions.
The question is how to organize incentives to make anti-war ideal a reality.
As the last 70 odd years have demonstrated, Economic development as a carrot alone seems to have not worked. The stick of MAD unfortunately seems to required.
I mean Russia could leave, pull their troops back in Russia. It's not like the Ukrainians invaded Russia, or have annexed any Russian territory that they want to keep. The Russians were not in fact forced to invade.
It's nice to see a speck of sanity in this thread.
Oh but didn't you know that all that aid money is actually going to America(n weapons manufacturers, who will then lobby us into the next forever war after this one).
If you were wondering how american politicians managed to piss away trillions of dollars in the middle east instead of fixing healthcare or education, building trains, doing anything the least bit useful, this is how. You gin the people up into believing that there's a bad guy somewhere and its our job to make things right, and you're off to the races.
You can find TONS of examples of people in Europe being jailed or having cops come to their house for something they said on social media. In some cases for things as simple as criticizing a politician.
Here’s a high profile one, but I can find you plenty more examples.
>On 25 May 2018, Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court[170][174]
“Breach of peace” means he was saying something that they didn’t want him to say. This is a real curtailing of free speech.
>companies to trash DEI
DEI is often racist and many of its implementations in modern companies violate the civil rights act. Companies are correct to be ditching it because it poses a big risk for discrimination lawsuits.
I actually spoke with lawyers about this very recently and reverse discrimination lawsuits are a booming business right now because there are so many clear cut examples of violations of the civil rights act.
Absolutely agree. Also the public ___location where you watch launches from is also the ___location where SpaceX employees watch from (South Padre Island). So you get as good of a view as the actual SpaceX employees do and it’s free to walk or bike in. It’s an amazing experience.
Under the previous admin it took longer to get regulatory approval than it took to build it (the most advanced rocket in the world) and it involved insane things like strapping a pair of headphones onto a seal and playing rocket sounds to it.
We can only hope that the new administration will streamline the process and reduce the time needed to get regulatory approval.
> Under the previous admin it took longer to get regulatory approval than it took to build it (the most advanced rocket in the world)
Generally it does take awhile for a third party to understand the design decisions and their impacts then the designing person. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone working on software.
> it involved insane things like strapping a pair of headphones onto a seal and playing rocket sounds to it.
>nonetheless we were required to kidnap a seal, strap it to a board, and play sonic boom sounds to it to see if it would be distressed. This is an actual thing that happened. I have pictures.
Then shows a picture. It sounds like another commenter is saying that the pic displayed by the Lex podcast is not the exact pic from Elon, but instead a similar pic meant to illustrate.
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was that SpaceX has said they've had to do this, and if it sounds so wacky that that's unbelievable, there are actually photos of the same thing happening with seals, so I feel very little need to doubt that SpaceX was held to the same standard if that's what they claim.
Not a "citation" as much as anecdotal evidence that dispels doubt.
They take a lot longer than 6 weeks to build a Starship. They can build a Starship a month, but that's because there is significant parallelism. My guess is that there are parts on a Starship that started assembly over 1 year before the Starship is complete.
I don't know if Elon Musk or SpaceX has ever kidnapped a seal and played headphones to it, but the photos that were going around the internet for the last few years (they made the rounds in 2017 in connection to SpaceX, before Musk began referencing it in 2023/2024) were from an unrelated study in 2006: https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1848070131781455911
I'm still looking or the original study to find out what the "larger study" was about [was it an impact study related to Vandenberg? Was it part of seal monitoring, and while they had the seals they did a bunch of other stuff?], so if someone else digs it up I'd be interested in a link.
I don't know exactly how often who puts headphones on seals yet, but it sounds like as part of operating at Vandenberg, it's routine to "haul out" (by which I assume they mean, capture and remove, releasing some time/distance away) harbor seals, so they aren't in the way; it sounds like they also (sometimes? always?) perform some amount of monitoring activities on the seals, since you've already got them captured.
Also, all of this activity is apparently termed "Level B harassment".
Yeah, I agree, fuck seals. The more we damage marine mammal life with loud sounds the better. If they didn’t want to get killed off in awful ways by our tech toys they should have evolved ear muffs.
Delta IV heavies also launched from Vandenburg since long before f9 existed, and is considerably louder than falcon 9. was there a need for that study?
I watched this video and honestly did not find any of her points very compelling.
Her best point is basically her own subjective opinion that Feynman does not belong amongst the greatest physicists of all time like Newton and Einstein. And like yeah I guess that’s sort of true. But most of the video is just stating that Feynman’s fans are weird. Feynman is super popular because he made very impressive contributions to science AND he was charismatic and inspiring. It’s the combination of both and she mostly ignores that.
Like the thing about brushing teeth and seeing things from a different point of view. She completely missed the entire point of why people think his point of view is interesting on it. Basically he’s just saying in a video that most people brush their teeth every morning, and if you view all the humans doing this from a higher vantage point, like from space, you see this line creeping across the earth and most of the people right on that line are engaged in the same ritual. It’s interesting to think about this one phenomenon from the perspective of individual humans and also from someone watching from space. She doesn’t provide a reason why this is dumb she just basically says it’s dumb and moves on to the next point. It kind of feels like she either didn’t think about it enough or is just being disingenuous.
In any case I’ve found Feynman’s work and life to be inspiring since I was a teenager. He’s inspired many people to go into physics and other sciences, which she herself states in the video, but somehow she makes that out to be a bad thing by implying the Feynman fans are weird, calling them “Feynman Bros”.
Frankly I'm having trouble believing you watched the video if you make the assertion:
> He’s inspired many people to go into physics and other sciences, which she herself states in the video, but somehow she makes that out to be a bad thing by implying the Feynman fans are weird, calling them “Feynman Bros”.
There were multiple points in the presentation on her experience with Feynman fans and why they deserved the Bros title.
* Having an unearned superiority complex while having misogynistic beliefs (6:50->8:23) - followed by examples of personal experiences by the video creator
* Making up stories about him (1:42:XX->1:44:XX)
* Thinking that negging is cool? I realize I already said misogynistic beliefs, but feel like this should be re-iterated (24:20->25:50). The example given about the Feynman and the waitress was particularly rage-inducing to me. I'm picturing my mother or wife in that scenario and some jackass doing that to them.
> Like the thing about brushing teeth and seeing things from a different point of view. She completely missed the entire point of why people think his point of view is interesting on it. Basically he’s just saying in a video that most people brush their teeth every morning, and if you view all the humans doing this from a higher vantage point, like from space, you see this line creeping across the earth and most of the people right on that line are engaged in the same ritual. It’s interesting to think about this one phenomenon from the perspective of individual humans and also from someone watching from space. She doesn’t provide a reason why this is dumb she just basically says it’s dumb and moves on to the next point. It kind of feels like she either didn’t think about it enough or is just being disingenuous.
This is a mischaracterization of this section of the video. 37:33-> 39:45 for anyone else who wants to make their own judgement. The point was that people watch the clip of Feynman and come out with the wrong/harmful conclusions.
Did you read the book? Some of those are distortions.
Regarding the negging incident, she left out important context in her summary of this part of the book.
Feynman went to a bar where it was clear that some of the women at that bar were intending to use men to get free drinks and food. In the incident he described, a woman asked him to buy three sandwiches and a drink at a diner and then says she has to run to go meet up with a lieutenant (taking the sandwiches with her). His negging, was to ask for her to pay for the sandwiches if she had no intention of staying and eating with him. Basically, not being a pushover.
Secondly, he states right after that in the book, "But no matter how effective the lesson was, I never really used it after that. I didn't enjoy doing that."
I also think the incident about lying about whether he was a student while at Cornell was exaggerated. Feynman was 26 at the time and his wife had just died. In the anecdote about the dance, he mentions that some girls asked him if he was a student, and after getting rejected by others at the dance, he says "I don't want to say" and two girls go with him back to his place. But later he confesses, "I didn't want the situation to get so distorted and misunderstood, so I let them know I was a professor".
Overall, I don't find strong evidence of the claims that he was a misogynist or abusive to women in the book outside of his frequenting of a strip club, which may be enough for some people, but, I think people don't realize how different people's attitudes were to things like nudity and sex in the 70s and early 80s before AIDs was a thing.
I hadn't read the book fully, but I did coincidentally read that chapter a long time ago. Given the context you provide, I agree that he does not seem to be worse than anyone else given the time period. The problem is when people read about him and try to adopt mid-1900s values in the 2000s - and that's really what the video above about his legacy is about.
(also I'm fairly pro people-visiting-the-strip-club even though I've never been)
It's misogynistic, because the ghost writer of Surely You're Joking Mr. Feyman!, Ralph Leighton, ultimately put into print narratives that encouraged men to see "ordinary" women as "worthless bitches". In the character of "Feynman":
Well, someone only has to give me the principle, and I get the idea. All during the next day I built up my psychology differently: I adopted the attitude that those bar girls are all bitches, that they aren't worth anything, and all they're in there for is to get you to buy them a drink, and they're not going to give you a goddamn thing; I'm not going to be a gentleman to such worthless bitches, and so on. I learned it till it was automatic.
...
On the way to the bar I was working up nerve to try the master's lesson on an ordinary girl. After all, you don't feel so bad disrespecting a bar girl who's trying to get you to buy her drinks but a nice, ordinary, Southern girl?
We went into the bar, and before I sat down, I said, "Listen, before I buy you a drink, I want to know one thing: Will you sleep with me tonight?"
"Yes."
So it worked even with an ordinary girl!
The story about direct consensual sex with one "ordinary girl" doesn't validate that men should have misogynist attitudes towards ordinary women. It's just confirmation bias. It matters, because training your mind to be misogynist until it's automatic would spill over into other aspects of your life, like how you treat female coworkers.
It’s something that everyone has to implement because their products will be inferior without it. But it’s not something you can use to build a monopoly easily, and since everyone has to do it there will be many people racing to the bottom pushing the price down.
> We are also talking much more rightly about equity,
>it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place. And since we didn’t start in the same place. Some folks might need more: equitable distribution
This is arguing for giving certain people more benefits versus others based on their race and gender.
This mindset is dangerous, especially if you codify it into an automated system like an AI and let it make decisions for you. It is literally the definition of institutional discrimination.
It is good that we are avoiding codifying racism into our AI under the fake moral guise of “equity”
Its not. What we currently have is institutional discrimination and Trump is trying to make it much worse. Making sure AI doesn't reflect or worsen current societal racism is a massive issue
At my job I am not allowed to offer a job to a candidate unless I have first demonstrated to the VP of my org that I have interviewed a person or color.
This is literally the textbook definition of discrimination based on skin color and it is done under the guise of “equity”.
It is literally defined in the civil rights act as illegal (title VII).
It is very good that the new administration is doing away with it.
So did your company interview any people of color before? It seems like your org recognizes their own racism and is taking steps to fight that. Good on them at least if they occasionally hire some of them and aren't just covering their asses.
You don't seem to understand either letter of the spirit of the civil rights act.
You're happy that a racist president who campaigned on racism and keeps on baselely accusing people who are members of minority groups of being unqualified while himself being the least qualified president in history is trying to encourage people to not hire minorities? Why exactly?
2. Candidate applies and interviews, team likes them and wants to move forward
3. Team not allowed to offer because candidate is not diverse enough
4. Team goes and interviews a diverse person.
Now if we offer the person of color a job, the first person was discriminated against because they would have got the job if they had had the right skin color.
If we don’t offer the diverse person a job, then the whole thing was purely performative because the only other outcome was discrimination.
This is how it works at my company.
Go read Title VII of the civil rights act, this is expressly against both the letter and spirit of the law.
BTW calling everything you disagree with racism doesn’t work anymore, nobody cares if you think he campaigned on racism (he didn’t).
If anything, people pushing this equity stuff are the real racists.
Edit after reading about Trump firing the people administering our nuclear weapons: God damn Donald Trump, and God damn the people who are so foolish to believe the the disinformation networks that tell them Donald Trump isn't working to destroy this country.
>There was (still is) a massive cyberattack against X.
>We get attacked every day, but this was done with a lot of resources. Either a large, coordinated group and/or a country is involved.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1899149509407473825