Good question, and I think the misunderstanding is Buffett is speaking against, not for, tariffs here. I’m surprised none of the responses have spelled that out clearly yet.
He’s saying tariffs are making 7.5 billion people dislike us even more, and that jeopardizes our unique position in the world.
Could you expand on that? I understand the idea from the quote, but I don't understand why you left your job. Was it because you assessed there wasn't a need for high throughput quantum random numbers? Or because you thought it was wasteful? Or something else?
The concern I would have with relying too much on a source key to derive other keys from would be if one of the keys is leaked, the others would also be exposed. I don't have an application in mind, but assume some could exist where that would be a concern. Maybe you could respond to that concern. I don't know what use cases your company would have been targeting.
His point was that he was working on a product that solves no actual problem.
Quantum RNGs are gimmicks that are sold as a solution to a security problem. But they don't solve any security problem. There are real security problems with RNGs, but none of them is solved by a Quantum RNG. They usually come down to implementation errors or not using a secure RNG.
No, they aren’t gimmicks. The advantage of a quantum-based entropy sources are that they are often much faster than other hardware based entropy source. They are called ‘quantum’ because they exploit randomness present in particle behaviors described by quantum physics (photon behavior on a beam splitter, etc.). Even ring oscillator based random number generators have quantum effects that contribute to its jitter (think shot noise, as an example), but the analysis of its randomness didn’t require quantum physics to describe it.
Quantum RNGs don’t exploit some ‘quantum computing’ property and are strictly limited to a different type of noise from the usual physical noise sources (ring oscillators, phase locked loops, etc.).
Keeping the DRBG’s state (seed material) secure for the duration of its use is the problem. If this state is leaked, depending on the type of leak, then anything generated from that DRBG is now not protected. Even worse, you may not even know that this the case and continue to use the DRBG assuming that it is safe.
If state management is was not an issue, I’d agree with you, but the fact that vulnerabilities tend to appear in very unexpected places (side channels, speculative execution, etc.), makes this problem difficult. A sidestep is to simply have fresh entropy.
Yeah that argument seems more a marketing gimmick than makes technical sense. If the OS RNG needs fresh entropy it can reseed with fresh entropy from various sources as it does today and use fast key erasure for forward resistance. Sure there will be windows of opportunity of state compromise, but if the state can be compromised then you have deeper problems, for example they can copy the output of a TRNG source. It's just wasteful to spend a large amount of money on a problem that has a negligible chance of ever actually happening, and in reality would only potentially patch one small issue in what would be a larger shitstorm.
> If the OS RNG needs fresh entropy it can reseed with fresh entropy from various sources as it does today and use fast key erasure for forward resistance.
This assumes that the OS has access to a source of entropy that replenishes itself quickly enough for whatever the OS is using. One of the biggest complaints I’ve seen from customers selecting entropy sources is the speed of ‘built-in’ entropy sources, to the point where they will actively look for faster ones and pay quite a bit more when they do genuinely need them. The market is there.
While they could implement the fast key erasure, there is still the looming threat of future mathematic attacks on it, and if some analysis comes forward which shows a way to abuse this, then the house of cards falls down. While these attacks are a concern with any DRBG instantiation, the sidestep is, once again, fresh entropy.
If you happen to need a certification for your entropy source, fast key erasure, as described, doesn’t map cleanly to the SP 800-90 series (NIST’s RNG standards) or the AIS 20/31 (BSI’s RNG standards). Most of the time, people wanting high speed entropy are wanting it in a way that not only they trust it, but in a way where governments would too. While I think there could be a way to define the fast key erasure in terms of SP 800-90C, I don’t think there is an implementation that NIST has approved yet.
> Sure there will be windows of opportunity of state compromise, but if the state can be comprised you have bigger problems, for example they could just copy the output of a TRNG source.
This type of compromise (copying the output of TRNG) is an issue outside the scope of the DRBG’s state… Replicating, calculating, or leaking the DRBG state does not require a persistent listener after the initial compromise, would likely be undetectable to the user, and would be effective until the user gets fresh entropy.
I’ve seen from customers selecting entropy sources is the speed of ‘built-in’ entropy sources, to the point where they will actively look for faster ones and pay quite a bit more when they do genuinely need them. The market is there.
Sure and customers buy Monster cables because they've been told they sound better. I'm sure there's a market, but exactly what is this genuine need and do they really understand their own problem? Also for more than a decade now modern systems have a fast entropy source with on chip RNG such as RDRAND and this extends to the embedded context.
> I'm sure there's a market, but exactly what is this genuine need and do they really understand their own problem?
Unfortunately, my information stops at the fact that they claim to need the high-output entropy source.
> Also for more than a decade now modern systems have a fast entropy source with on chip RNG such as RDRAND and this extends to the embedded context.
On-chip RNGs are useful, yes, and are often enough for most use cases. In particular, I like Intel’s RDSEED quite a bit, but the larger (in terms of core count) the chips have gotten, the more convoluted the distribution network for the material has become. Even still, the speed of RDSEED (note, RDRAND is an automatically reseeded DRBG, whereas RDSEED is an RBG3 XOR construction (as defined in SP 800-90C) which has fresh entropy in each output) has fallen to a rate in which some vendors are looking for something faster.
Fast key erasure uses symmetric cipher. If there's a mathematical attack on that, then you just don't have any symmetric cipher, or you need to rekey faster than fast key erasure, i.e. rekey every 16 bytes of plaintext or even faster. You need a custom protocol for this, how is that certified?
> Fast key erasure uses symmetric cipher. If there's a mathematical attack on that, then you just don't have any symmetric cipher
The generation of the RNG’s output stream is the result of a symmetric cipher, yes, but an attack doesn’t need to be on the cipher as a whole. And, once again, if there is a state leakage at any point we end up with the same problem that any future output of the key stream can be undetectably replicated. Sure, you can always replace the key sooner, but that only better protects against the state leakage; the output sequence is still deterministic no matter how fast you replace it.
> You need a custom protocol for this, how is that certified?
This is where cybersecurity testing labs are useful, especially ones who can do entropy source validation. If the protocol itself can be described in terms of the standard, and fulfill its requirements, then it can be easily certified. If there is no way to map the behavior to the standard, but the behavior is secure (according to the lab), the SMEs at the lab can request guidance from the certifying body on how to deal with the situation. These requests have culminated in public guidance (e.g., the FIPS 140-3 IGs) on how to certify industry specific protocols.
My point is that you don't need an extravagant Quantum source for randomness, and you definitely don't need high throughput. It's really a solution looking for a problem.
Also, I've seen numerous people working in the Quantum space claim that metastability is a quantum effect of ring oscillators, but very doubtful and the literature around it never mentions the q-word.
Most people do not need high throughput entropy sources, sure. But the people who do pay quite a bit for that functionality.
I also haven’t seen any oft-referred literature describing metastability do so using a quantum-physics context. The metastability itself is a product of quantum behavior but has been described well enough without needing it. Depending on what you’re exploiting randomness-wise (like the metastability or the oscillation period length), the type of physical description you use to analyze the noise source changes quite a bit. For most ring oscillator work, I prefer to look at the work near the 2000’s by Ali Hajimiri, none of which is in terms of quantum anything.
Wouldn't a quantum RNG solve this issue? I'm aware that there are non-quantum ways to fix this problem, but in my mind quantum is one of the possible solutions, albeit one of the most expensives.
hannob aptly explained why I left my job, because Quantum RNG is a gimmick and doesn't solve any real problems. But to expand on that, it was heavily marketed with the idea that somehow we're living in a "entropy starved" world. We do a pretty good job of gathering entropy today from various sources such as mixing unique identifiers of hardware, CPU jitter, interrupt timing, RDRAND (which is a similar design to metastability of ring oscillators), etc. So the remark if you haven't managed to generate one secure 256-bit key then you have much bigger problems resonated heavily with me, and I realised there just isn't a need for gigabit speed TRNGs and the Quantum marketing is just scare tactics which my employer employed.
Also no crypto library or application is going to modify its entropy source to get its randomness from a TRNG device directly when it already has access to a high quality RNG via OS APIs/crypto libraries (for a good list of these check out https://randombytes.cr.yp.to/).
The concern I would have with relying too much on a source key to derive other keys from would be if one of the keys is leaked, the others would also be exposed
There’s a difference between (a) hiring smart people you respect and generally agree with to give you their own opinions and help shape your decisions and (b) hiring people who will go along with anything you say and holding their careers and families’ safety over the fire.
Laws matter less than they used to. When the President regularly uses the term "retribution" to describe his mode of operation, I don't blame someone for taking a more careful approach in a case like this. It shouldn't be that way, for a journalist. But a lot of things shouldn't be the way they are today.
It’s one of the reasons I disagree with NDT and other popular scientists that Newton was the greatest scientist. Einstein was singular in that respect that he was the only one even thinking about spacetime as a geometric entity. Calculus and gravity, were already all things others were working on and making similar strides. Newton just got there first and while he’s definitely a unique genius and impressive in the breadth of things he accomplished, that takes away for me when comparing him with Einstein.
I think his most unique work may have been the contributions to optics but stacked up against a fundamental description of what gravity and time are that completely changed our thinking on it… Not to mention that still to this day 100 years later we’re building machines to verify some of Einstein’s predictions. Oh and he invented the idea of lasers despite not believing in quantum mechanics.
Not to mention that Newton’s foundational contributions to math and science stopped around 28 when he started focusing on alchemy and other things. By comparison Einstein kept making contributions to physics throughout his life and his contributions “stopped” when he focus on the grand unifying theory trying to bridge quantum mechanics and relativity, a problem still unsolved 70 years after his death despite an accelerating understanding and technology in the world of physics.
Not discounting Einstein's singular contributions, but he had help in putting Riemannian (also called Bolshai-Lobachevsky in other parts of the world ;)) geometry to use:
> This idea was pointed out by mathematician Marcel Grossmann and published by Grossmann and Einstein in 1913.[7]
In most mathematical circles, Bolyai-Lobachevsky geometry is strictly a (family of non-Euclidian) hyperbolic geometry.
János Bolyai, not Bolshai. And certainly in the 1820s-1830s he investigated the Euclidean parallel postulate, arriving at a hyperbolic geometry in which it does not hold true (i.e., initially close parallel lines diverge), and eventually studying geometries which take no position on the parallel postulate. Lobachevsky also independently arrived at a hyperbolic geometry, and continued develop a substitute postulate for the parallel postulate.
However, all of the above is several long steps before developing differential geometry with its inner products encoding angles and distances on the tangent spaces at each point on an arbitrarily curved smooth manifold of higher dimensions, and an even longer one from the pseudo-Riemannian manifold of 3+1d General Relativity. Although many hands contributed to the positive inner product -> non-degenerate inner product, the reason anyone was doing that was because of Einstein's work on gravitation (in turn provoked in part by Poincaré's 1905 argument about Lorentz-invariance of the wave equation for gravitation, in the spirit of Special Relativity).
He’s not scared of the Russians. He’s scared of the voters thinking they should be scared of the Russians. When Zelenskyy said the Russians will come for America, Trump was angry because he knew it was going to scare voters and lose him support.
Thank you for your comment. Overall, this lifted me up and helped me learn some more about what was in the Declaration. (I went and read it for the first time after seeing your comment.)
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Unfortunately, unlike 1776, today's king was given power by the governed, and the majority (of those who care enough to vote) still support him. So I don't know where those of us who are horrified go from here.
With absolutely no malice intended: you step back a bit, lick your wounds, and try to figure out why your message and candidate failed - just like the GOP did for the past four years.
Four years feels like a long time when it has just started; it isn’t so long at all in hindsight. Moreover, you have two years before the next opportunity you have to disempower Trump (midterm elections). The campaigns for those start in a year or so, so if you’re going to cripple Trump by taking back Congress now is the time to be introspective.
The electorate is not irreconcilable, but change doesn’t happen when you double down on the same course.
Thank you for a non-malicious response, but (also respectfully) I am not a Democrat, and your response seemed to me more geared toward answering "How can I deal with policy changes that I disagree with?" I am more concerned about the potential for the complete capitulation of American democracy to totalitarianism than any particular platform issues. What's happening right now is only a small part standard disagreements between parties (the GOP banning trans athletes, rebalancing the budget, approaching foreign relations differently) and much more about half the country being entranced by a cult of personality while the leaders in a position to stop a president from becoming a king instead are bowing down to him.
> try to figure out why your message and candidate failed
I don't like Harris' message. I probably disagree with her on a majority of political debate topics. I am a centrist and would agree with her on some things, but I would have considered myself a right leaning centrist more than a left leaning centrist. Her message failed for me too. I am just dismayed that the country elected _this_ man. A convicted felon who has provably lied more than any other person on record in the history of humanity, who already tried to overthrow an election, is only self interested, a bully, a sexual assaulter, a conman, a swindler: _this_ man? And now he's doing what you knew he would do, and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.
I don't want to know how to get Kamala 2.0 to win an election. I want to know how to get back to Bush v. Gore.
> I am not a Democrat, and your response seemed to me more geared toward answering "How can I deal with policy changes that I disagree with?"
Yep, 100%. My biases are showing :)
> I am more concerned about the potential for the complete capitulation of American democracy to totalitarianism than any particular platform issues. What's happening right now is only a small part standard disagreements between parties (the GOP banning trans athletes, rebalancing the budget, approaching foreign relations differently) and much more about half the country being entranced by a cult of personality while the leaders in a position to stop a president from becoming a king instead are bowing down to him.
Yes, I’m concerned about the risks I’m seeing too. Where I’m really struggling is in trying to connect that emotion to facts. So far, every headline, article, and statement I’ve seen has turned out to be somewhere between “misleading” and “outright malicious falsehood” upon closer inspection.
Still, I read and give each one a fair chance to change my mind. The accusations being made are so extreme it would be wrong for me not to.
What really concerns me is that this extreme partisan rhetoric would make it much easier for Trump or someone near him to actually take control. When people have seen months and months of these sorts of assertions being made, only to investigate them and discover that isn’t what was happening at all… at some point, people are going to stop listening. That’s when things get really dangerous IMO.
My biggest fear with this administration is that they’ll actually do the things they’re being accused of, I’ll see it for what it is, and I won’t be able to get anyone to listen to me because of “outrage fatigue”.
ETA: a second response is coming for the last section :)
I agree in the principle that extraordinary claims must be backed by fact and evidence.
I disagree that there is an excess of hyperbole going on.
I truly believe that Trump/Musk/Vance and the unitary-executive/techbro-cult, if they are not soon stopped in their tracks, will have subverted American political and economic power for generations.
Europe and Canada and the world can no longer trust the United States as a long-term partner. This isn't about subtle pivots and diplomacy. This is betrayal of values on our closest political, military and economic allies.
He is actively destroying the apolitical civil service and trying to gut the pipeline of young, skilled workers into federal government. The only motive for the actions they are taking are to destroy our government. I would not be shocked to hear reports in the coming months of military officers being asked who they voted for in 2024.
He is claiming (and trying to exert!) levels of executive power that generations of Americans were taught by Nixon were forbidden.
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
"If the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented and that means we don't live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy.”
I live in Canada and let me tell you we're not covering ourselves in glory when it comes to democracy either. Between laws like bill C-63[1], which would effectively criminalize "bad" online speech and the prime minister suspending parliament[2] for political expediency we're not looking too good.
I'm always happy to engage in friendly political discussion!
> I truly believe that Trump/Musk/Vance and the unitary-executive/techbro-cult, if they are not soon stopped in their tracks, will have subverted American political and economic power for generations.
I actually agree with this statement. The difference is that I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. From my perspective those power structures have been in the control of the left[†] for my entire life; they've had near-complete control since at least FDR, and substantial influence back to ~1900.
[†]: "the left" isn't a great descriptor here, but I don't really have an objective way to name the group I'm referencing. I think you know what I mean, if not feel free to ask and I'll expound on it.
--
Note: I wrote this section by doing my best to empathize with Trump and put myself mentally in his position. I'm assigning my own perceptions of his motivations and perceptions. Please don't take statements made here as my attesting to them being fact. When I make an assertion here, it's because I believe Trump himself would make it, not because I necessarily agree with it or believe it to be true.
Trump intended to "play ball" and steer the federal government through the normal mechanisms in his first term. He was met with far more substantial resistance than he expected and had little success. Then he lost a hotly contested election for a second term, hurting his ego - and I think we all agree that ego is a powerful motivator for Trump.
... but then the Biden administration took control of those same levers of power that Trump had difficultly moving, and turned them on Trump. He was smeared by the media, continued to be mocked even after serving as President, spied upon, and ultimately was the target of multiple political prosecutions. His wealth and his very freedom were directly threatened. This was an extreme escalation. His options in 2024 were binary: he could win the Presidency or have his life destroyed. He won, and now his actions are being driven almost exclusively by righteous indignation.
He's going scorched earth. He's using every available lever of power and pulling them as hard as he can. He's doing things he knows are going to get shot down in the courts and taking actions he knows are "gray" at best, and he's doing as many things at once as possible in an attempt to saturate both the other branches of government and the attention of the electorate.
His goal isn't to leave a legacy in the traditional sense, or to implement a typical policy agenda - he's trying to dismantle century-old entrenched systems of power that have cloaked themselves in the mantle of democracy in an attempt to take control of the same.
--
All of that said, I believe the American people elected him for the same reason I voted for him: because the status quo is unjustifiable, and no other path toward reform is apparent.
I want Trump to destroy the majority of government power and authority. My reasons for that are different than Trump's, and different from most Republicans I've met. Trump voters by and large are framing this as a fight against the "deep state", while I want to see a continuous, gradual reduction in government through redundancy. I'm an anarchist, but not "that kind" of anarchist - I don't want to murder the government, I want it to die of neglect because it's no longer necessary.
The methods he's using scare me. He's pushing the boundaries of Presidential power without question, and almost certainly exceeding them already in some ways. I fully expect that he will continue to do so in larger and more impactful ways.
Even if I'm 100% correct in inferring Trump's intentions, it's still a very dangerous approach. Those power structures are so entrenched because they have inordinate (and inappropriate) influence on the process in place to change them. They'll fight for their continued existence. However you want to phrase it, Trump is subverting, suspending, relaxing, ignoring, or destroying the protections built into our system of government.
The bet that we are making as a country right now is that Trump intends to use as little of that seized power as possible, that his intentions are what we believe them to be, that he has the honor necessary to release those levers of power, and that those he allies himself with along the way either don't attempt to or are unable to take over the movement.
Trump's actions are making us vulnerable to the destruction of the American system of government - but things have gotten to the point where a majority of voters feel that risk is justified when considering where we are today and where we're heading otherwise.
> Europe and Canada and the world can no longer trust the United States as a long-term partner. This isn't about subtle pivots and diplomacy. This is betrayal of values on our closest political, military and economic allies.
I think Trump believes this is larger than domestic corruption - that the US is so powerful economically, militarily, and culturally that the cancer in our government has spread to other Western governments.
As for the US as a long-term partner, that ship sailed long ago. Our system is structured so that the party with the power to set our foreign relations agenda changes every four years. A promise made by the US is only guaranteed for the current Presidential term. It may be honored by the next, or it may not.
> He is actively destroying the apolitical civil service and trying to gut the pipeline of young, skilled workers into federal government. The only motive for the actions they are taking are to destroy our government.
Agreed. That is his explicit stated intent. I believe him, and it looks like most voters agree with him, too.
Let's all just hope we're correct in inferring his motivations for doing so.
> I would not be shocked to hear reports in the coming months of military officers being asked who they voted for in 2024.
I'd be shocked if there aren't reports. I'd be more shocked if those reports turned out to be both true and directed by the administration rather than overzealous individuals or not explicitly intended to generate those headlines in an attempt to sway opinion - but as I've said elsewhere, the accusation is of a magnitude that I'll investigate them with an open mind.
> He is claiming (and trying to exert!) levels of executive power that generations of Americans were taught by Nixon were forbidden.
Yep.
> “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
> "If the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented and that means we don't live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy.”
> These quotes should frighten every American.
I agree - but I think the disconnect is in whether we believe the risk is justified.
Our Founders did things that were illegal. They even did things that were objectively vile - they deprived loyalists of their property. In some cases they tortured or even killed them. They didn't do so without justification, or without trying every other option available to them. They weren't enthusiastic for those things; they saw them as a duty. Their actions led to the overthrow of a tyrannical monarch, the creation of a truly revolutionary system of government, two centuries of relative prosperity, and ultimately the creation and maintenance of the longest period of relative peace the modern world has ever seen.
Some other quotes that would be just as frightening as the above in a contemporary lens:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ~ James Madison
"If this be treason, make the most of it!" ~ Patrick Henry
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." ~ John Adams
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson in particular is a treasure trove of quotes that illustrate this idea. Let's just hope that Trump is a better man than many believe he is. Personally, I think it will be a near thing, and am hoping he clears that bar - because if I'm wrong, we're in for a rough ride indeed.
I admire (though do not agree with) the spirit of your argument. What I don't understand is how, given everything we know and have seen about Trump and the content of his character, you could possibly expect him to do the "honorable thing" when push comes to shove.
The Founders fought and bled and sacrificed together for the free principles that this country was founded on. Trump has done none of these things. In fact, he goes out of his way to show contempt for large swathes of the citizenry on a regular basis. The man is famous for refusing to pay his bills. Why would one expect this nakedly self-interested man to show a shred of honor at the eleventh hour when he has the chance to become a powerful tyrant for the remainder of his life?
As someone who currently studies public policy I find the centrist declaration interesting because I used to consider myself a centrist until I started reading more on the actual positions of many politicians.
In my limited view Obama was very centrist, as was Hillary, and with some notable exceptions it looked like Kamala would continue the trend (while expediently skewing left and sometimes even slightly right when necessary).
I think if you were to pie chart policy even into Trumps first term you’d see presidential action being both majority in volume and majority in impact as centrist.
So while I agree that Kamala’s messaging failed to point this out during the election, and DEI rhetoric and action being a notable exception to my argument, Kamala was at the end of the day the centrist candidate IMO and thus the 2.0 correction would be more transparency to that reality.
> I don't like Harris' message. I probably disagree with her on a majority of political debate topics. I am a centrist and would agree with her on some things, but I would have considered myself a right leaning centrist more than a left leaning centrist. Her message failed for me too.
I’m an extremist without question, just not the popular type. Think less “Donald Trump” and more “Ron Paul” :)
> I am just dismayed that the country elected _this_ man. A convicted felon who has provably lied more than any other person on record in the history of humanity, who already tried to overthrow an election, is only self interested, a bully, a sexual assaulter, a conman, a swindler: _this_ man?
The alternative was someone with no obvious positions other than her predecessor’s, who was not elected by her party, and who was honestly just unlikeable as an individual for most people.
Of all the things you listed about Trump, I’d only really take issue with two: I’m not convinced he sexually assaulted anyone (though I also don’t have sufficient evidence to believe he definitely didn’t), and I don’t think “only self interested” is quite right. I think his motivations are a bit more complex than that, and are more rooted in personal pride and revenge than anything else. I don’t think he intended to win the first time, and I don’t think personal financial enrichment was really a goal of his either time.
I think his initial run was mostly on a whim, but (Hillary) Clinton offended him and he doubled down in response. His second run was personal - he felt personally attacked on both socially and legally, and has basically made it his mission in life at this point to destroy everything those who did that to him care about.
I don’t believe for a moment that he’s being selfless or altruistic. He’s acting out of self-interest, but not in the way most people would mean that statement.
> And now he's doing what you knew he would do, and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.
As best I can tell, he’s mostly doing what the people who elected him expected him to do.
> I don't want to know how to get Kamala 2.0 to win an election. I want to know how to get back to Bush v. Gore.
Thanks, I am appreciating reading this discussion.
> Of all the things you listed about Trump, I’d only really take issue with two
So then you agree that he tried to overthrow an election? This is the wild part to me. I don't know whether his actions after losing the 2020 election were technically illegal or not, but in my opinion this was the clearest threat to America's peaceful transition of power I've ever witnessed. I thought "okay, this is at least 50x worse than Watergate, even Trump won't survive this." Then amazingly (to me), he won in 2024. My only hypothesis for how that happened is that 99% of people who voted for him believed his unfounded claims regarding the 2020 election. But you seem to be an interesting counterexample.
Point blank, he won because of Biden’s weaponization of the justice department. The American people saw it happening right in front of their faces and they were utterly tired of it. It’s possible that Biden did this because he truly felt that Trump could not be allowed a second term, but when he made the decision to go down that path, he made a binary bet. If it worked, he would have saved democracy. If it failed, Trump would rise to power, hellbent on revenge. He made this careless bet without an actual strategy in place, and he predictably lost. In a way, Biden created the very thing he feared.
Thank you, for both responses. There are little things we could quibble about further, but it's late, so I'm going to keep it short [edit: I failed] and then go to bed happy that you and I were able to have a discourse that felt respectful, well reasoned, and beneficial - something I've felt so lacking for recently. Despite being able to quibble about details, I understand a lot of what you are saying and agree with many of your points.
> As best I can tell, he’s mostly doing what the people who elected him expected him to do.
The one thing I'd like to pick at tonight is this. I don't think many of the people who voted for him would have agreed with all of this a year ago, but they get stuck agreeing with it now out of confirmation bias and because he's on their team, and they want their team to win. It seems more like everything Trump does is approved by the vast majority of his base, no matter what that ends up being.
Before the election I enjoyed the debate between Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris[1]. Shapiro's main point was that though he didn't like a lot of what Trump said, he liked a lot of what Trump did in his first term. Shapiro was of the opinion that Trump wouldn't do all the things he said and that his second term would look a lot like his first.
It is my opinion that, a month into it, Trump's second term now looks nothing like his first, and Trump is making good on all the things he said he would do during his campaign. Everyone isn't Shapiro, but a lot of people listen to him and think like him. Taking Shapiro as an example, I would say he was clearly wrong. But if you watch Shapiro today, he accepts what Trump is doing full stop. He's not out there saying, "I didn't think Trump would actually do all of this." He's acting like this is what he wanted. And, thanks to Shapiro's confirmation bias and a good healthy dose of audience capture, it is what he wanted - at least the part about Trump being right, now that "right" has changed.
Anyway, I typed way longer than I intended to. Thank you for a good civil discussion.
> I’d be happy with Obama v. McCain at this point.
Chiming in, this point is a important one. Many people who voted Trump didn't actually believe he would do all the things he said. His whole thing is that he talks big. Its and incredible power really. If he says "I'm going to do <objectively bad thing>", and his critics call him out on it. His supporters say: its just talk to get a reaction, you're taking it out of context, etc. This happened a lot during the first term (big talk, not follow-through) and then lots of big talk during the campaigning for this term with the expectation it would likewise have little follow-through. But then he starts doing it, and his supporters immediately switch to "he said he would do this and he's doing it and he has our support".
Example during the first term was the "Lock her up" talk about Hillary. He didn't do anything about her at all. And people just accepted it as big talk. Hi supporters (mostly) didn't really expected him to go after her with the DOJ or whatever. It was just campaigning bluster. But today he says he's going to start unnecessary trade wars with allies and people said "its just bluster, he's not really going to do it", immediately to "of course he's going that, he said he would".
When he said that people would not need to vote again if he's elected a second time, was that bluster? Taken out of context? Not to be taken seriously? That's what his supporters said then. But what he starts making moves to actually make that happen? Then its "he said he would do that and was voted in, so that's what america wants". It's a wild to say its what people want when they didn't believe he would do it.
>Then its "he said he would do that and was voted in, so that's what america wants". It's a wild to say its what people want when they didn't believe he would do it.
It is what people want. Just look at how many people on HN are aggressively carrying water for Trump and DOGE in these threads. They aren't the minority, they're the mainstream. You can't simply pretend the majority of Trump voters who absolutely do want him to do the things he says either don't exist or didn't vote.
The inflection point has been quick - and I think a lot of that is due to Musk injecting himself into the process, and Trumpists spending the last four years organizing. They know they wasted the potential of their last term and don't intend to make the same mistake again.
But people have been warning about this all the way back during the alt-right/Tea Party days of Obama, which Trump was a direct response to.
It's been like watching the slowest train crash in progress, all while half the country accuses the other half of derangement for believing trains are even real.
>The alternative was someone with no obvious positions other than her predecessor’s, who was not elected by her party, and who was honestly just unlikeable as an individual for most people.
We used to live in a democracy, not a dimocracy. There were more options than the 2 major parties. Always have been.
> I’m not convinced he sexually assaulted anyone
Yeah, and his name totally didn't show up in Maxwell's black book, and he totally wasn't a pal of Jeffrey Epstein. /s
You're fucking kidding me.
> I don’t think personal financial enrichment was really a goal of his either time.
My brother in Christ, financial enrichment has been the only goal of Donald Trump, ever. He ran in 2016 expecting to lose so he could use the base as viewers of the new Fox-alt media platform he was trying to raise money for.
This is a guy whose life mission is to convince everyone else he's a billionaire, while simultaneously threatening to sue anyone who claims he isn't, while also simultaneously avoiding lawsuits that would open his finances up to discovery. He tried to sue his own biographer when said biographer claimed he wasn't a billionaire. Trump dropped the case when it went to discovery.
>I think his initial run was mostly on a whim, but (Hillary) Clinton offended him and he doubled down in response. His second run was personal - he felt personally attacked on both socially and legally, and has basically made it his mission in life at this point to destroy everything those who did that to him care about.
His first run was in 2000. His second run was 2012. Third run got him elected. His fourth run saw him defeated. His fifth run got him re-elected. Get your facts straight.
Largely no, but I did upload one of the very first ones I generated at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP5eOdyRhYw – For some reason I find this sort of thing good background music, though suspect most would not!
I quite like music with uncommon modes and weird scales and Suno isn't too bad at emulating this - especially with Arabic music (e.g. "swirling dramatic orchestral arabic music with oud guitar" will yield many good, if stereotypical, results). I'm not familiar enough with traditional regional music to pick out all the flaws so it works for me, but a "local" would probably say it sounds unrealistic in the same way that Suno-generated typical Western pop and rock sounds off to my ears.
That's interesting, but my brain can't stop thinking that it's impossible to play the instrument that fast and precisely. Plus, it clearly feels somehow that it was created to mimic the actual live performance of some sort. I guess this "suspension of disbelief" kind of thing is easy for some, but triggers something deeply unpleasant for others.
Oh, there's real music that's as scatty and uptempo as this from the region! My gateway to it was encountering a Romanian/Serbian musician called Benny Sarbu on YouTube who plays really fast accordion and synth pieces like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plmVGVUFUJw .. his sound basically inspired my prompting. I wanted something that sounded like what he's playing but with drums.
No not like that, like as a general term for the Media Industry™ as arbiters for what ideas you're allowed to see and hear, like 555 fake area code in movies, like in The Heretic Anthem, etc.
He’s saying tariffs are making 7.5 billion people dislike us even more, and that jeopardizes our unique position in the world.
reply