Maybe there are reasons Europe is pulling away from the US?
The current US president has threatened to invade European territory, is attempting to impose Russia's preferred "peace" plan on Ukraine, and has recently relaxed sanctions on Russia. He also consistently denigrates the military support Europe's given to the US in the recent past. The US has basically cut aid to Ukraine to zero, while Europe continues to supply them, which is currently the best way of dealing with Russia, sucking their military power into a war their not going to win.
When the Russians invaded Georgia in 2008, Europeans inked a deal for a second gas pipeline with them, Nordstream 2. When they annexed Crimea in 2014, Europeans went to the Sochi Olympics (which happened that same year) and went to the World Cup in 2018. And this is before you take into account the dozens of smaller incidents.
Those aren't "threats to invade European territory", not even ones that were ignored by the military. Those were shooting wars that got people killed and redrew the map in Eurasia. Europeans continued to do business with Russia more-or-less unimpeded until 2022. Many Russians still live, work, and do business in the Schengen area.
The US Congress passed a bill to fund Ukraine this week. [0]
The funding bill is never getting past the Senate, and even if it were the money is unlikely to reach Ukraine unless the current admin has a fundamental change of heart.
The (misguided IMO) idea was that buying their gas and integrating them into world markets would strengthen ties and liberalize them in the medium term.
I don't think it was misguided; Nuland-Pyatt leak and the tapping of Merkel's phone made it pretty clear to me that like in the Yeltsin years the problem was that the US didn't want Russia/Europe ties to succeed.
Why then did Russia have $300 Billion invested all over Europe? That was a massive portion of their national wealth, and it all got frozen by the EU in 2022. It looks as if Russia did want close economic integration with Europe. That's something the usa would not want, though.
Russia invaded Ukraine specifically to stop it from becoming too integrated with Europe. The idea of a rich and democratic Ukraine is a nightmare for Putin.
EU had that weird idea that if we just be nice to Russia and tolerate their bullshit for long enough they will warm up to us. Turns out that doesn't really work for country that entire foreign policy could be summed up as "bullying and lying"
I'm sorry but bullshit is what you're talking about. UK took money from Russian oligarchs (that they stole from my pocket) while being perfectly aware of the source, and later pretended they're "fighting" it when the potato got too hot to handle, never returning the invested money and essentially blaming me by proxy, someone who attempted to bring it under control. Germany was happy building pipelines and providing the high precision machines under the corrupt leader colluding with Russia, only breaking ties after the war and making said leader a scapegoat. It was all about your wealth at the cost of my wealth and freedom, you provided most money for the war and Russian elites' superyachts, and profited from it greatly with full awareness of what you're doing, and you were OK with that as long as the costs were externalized. Now you're pretending it was noble peacemaking, an honest mistake, and someone else is to blame. What's worse, you don't seem to learn from either our or your mistakes, willingly building a cage for yourself with a lag of just a few years.
So you're saying you can spot AI generated bullshit, but not spot a deliberate and hilarious contrivance that the author uses to reinforce their point?
It's 30 years since I visited Zion. So beautiful. The best part of a trip that included Lake Powell, Yosemite and the Grand Cannyon, though those were all great. Being British, basically no-one here has ever heard of it, so I'm always keen to tell people about it. The Park Rangers were great, too.
Mind you, your President seems keen on deterring foreign visitors of all sorts, so those visitor numbers are sure to decline. So that's a win, I guess.
This explains the naff "Captain Crunch" section of Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon". Not that you can get it where I live; it would have made sense to do a "Weetabix" section with the same theme.
It's funny, I know exactly what passage you mean and even though it's been many years since I read Cryptonomicon it's one of two specific passages I vividly remember reading and enjoying. This is even though I've never had Captain Crunch in my life.
(The other passage was the one about one of the characters using a computer while in prison and setting up a profusion of xterms scrolling through random files because he suspected he was being spied on using van Eck phreaking.)
Such a great book. Two of the big stand-outs to me have always been the bit about his ex-girlfriend doing a whole research project about his beard, and the phrase "anally copulating shopping carts" pops into my head every time Im at the super market.
The document's initial example of diagonalization doesn't explain it properly. It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings, or 31 such strings.
I suspect the "conveniently" may drop out of some conversion of a real problem to an abstraction, but that's not explained.
> The document's initial example of diagonalization doesn't explain it properly.
> It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings
This is actually a mistake on your part. It's true that it's possible to find a string of length 5 that isn't already contained in a list of 6 such strings.
But it isn't possible to do that by using diagonalization. The concept of diagonalization is that you differ from the first string in the list at index 1, from the second string in the list at index 2, from the third at index 3, and so on. A list of six strings, to illustrate diagonalization, would require all of the strings to be six digits long.
No, that can't be the point, because Slow_Dog specifically states that the article should show how to find a binary string of length 5 that isn't contained in a list of six such strings:
> It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings, or 31 such strings.
The reason it's not showing that is that it's showing an example of diagonalization. Slow_Dog would apparently prefer that the article about diagonalization discuss some other technique than diagonalization.
I think the missing piece is just note that, for actual proof applications, the length of the individual "strings" and the total number of them is both (countable) infinity, so the size does match.
A single light is a 1x1 pixel matrix. And there is no need for electricity to be a requirement. So a single candle is a video display! Turns out we've had video games all along!
It's not even that. Plenty of everyday people "swanned around having a lovely time" too; or at least, didn't think the restrictions should apply to them. Sure, in some of the cases he cites there's rank hypocrisy involved that should be called out, and the burden of the restrictions impacted the poor and underpivilged relatively more harshly and some leeway can be given there. But to imply it was just the former is bollocks.
Yeah, although the stuff I saw first-hand around vaccine distribution in affluent/elite circles was mind blowing.
People found so many ways of gaming the system and getting the vaccine instead of the prioritized elderly/immune-compromised. I knew rich college kids with parents who had ownership stakes in elder care companies so they got the shot early, etc. etc., in SF many seemed to get hold of the special codes that were given to communities with low vaccine uptake, etc.
A few of my friends also got the vaccine much earlier than they should, but they aren't rich or well connected. They merely lied about having preexisting conditions.
To be fair, if you are living in SF and a commentator on HN (as I assume you are), then your friends are certainly among the 1% richest people in the world and likely top 5% in the US.
> But to imply it was just the former is bollocks.
It is epistemically unsound, as is calling it bollocks.
Because of this, herding sheep is easy, thus I am hyper-vigilant about identifying potential sheep herding maneuvers, of which there were many during the whole covid debacle.
Which again is a charge of hypocrisy by the most powerful, and is a legitimate charge, but doesn’t mean the swivel eyed loons have a point.
Non swivel eyed non loons have been pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and those in charge for a long time. Even the Cummings example created outrage and if it wasn’t for the UK being led by probably the most unethical PM in its history, he would likely have gotten into far more trouble (or more likely wouldn’t have acted so blatantly illegally). Ironically, the reason Boris Johnson was PM was entirely due to Brexit, which the swivel eyed loons at least disproportionately, if not all of them, likely voted for.
Person A tells Persons B and C that they're under a grave threat if they step outside and must stay indoors. B and C then observe A strolling around outside without a care in the world. B says, "A is a hypocrite, and they must have been lying to me! I'm not going to follow their edicts" and resumes living life outside as normal. C says, "A is a hypocrite! They're behaving just like that degenerate B and refusing to take this deadly threat seriously!"
Who is the "swivel eyed loon" in this scenario again?
Venus has the smallest average distance from each point of the Earth's orbit to the nearest point on the other planet's orbit. I.e. whenever we're shown a diagram of the solar system, the "circle" that is Venus's orbit is closest (has the most similar size) to that of Earth's. I don't know the correct term for this measure.
The software seems on a par with the other automated fields tests I have regularly at hospital, and the output looks similar, showing approximately the same areas of degredation. Those automated tests are also approximate, so that's fine.
I do think there should be something to help you interpret what the results are. There's no indication what a "good" result should look like - that would be even response time across the field, and a even senstivity. Nor is there anything to say "you should go and see an eye specialist". If you get a result that looks like the patchwork I get, there should be something to let you know there could be something wrong with your eyes.
The current US president has threatened to invade European territory, is attempting to impose Russia's preferred "peace" plan on Ukraine, and has recently relaxed sanctions on Russia. He also consistently denigrates the military support Europe's given to the US in the recent past. The US has basically cut aid to Ukraine to zero, while Europe continues to supply them, which is currently the best way of dealing with Russia, sucking their military power into a war their not going to win.
reply