Yes, in a historic war of civilization versus the opposite, against a foe that uses your humanity as a weakness, it becomes very confusing who is right and who is wrong.
“past performance is a poor indicator of future performance” is quite a weak statement. It’s the one of the best predictors there is. There are very few exceptions. When you were called out you doubled down with complete nonsense. If everything were a series of independent variables, then every day after work, how do you decide whether to return home to your loving spouse (of many years) and children, why not go to a bar and find some strange? Why bother calling up your longtime friends to hang out, why not go to a bar and talk to the person next to you - a lifetime of (past) friendship is no indication of future kinship! Why bother writing a response to a forum post, when one moment from now, everything will be independent of everything else, and you have no expectations of feeling the same way? Finally, you excuse any flaws in your travesty of ideas by claiming that sniping at “Elon worshipers” is such a just cause that it excuses any sort of flawed thinking. This is a fine demonstration of echo chamber thinking.
This is obviously untrue. what you’re really saying is “I don’t agree with Elons views so it would be uncomfortable for me to think that he has some admirable qualities, so I don’t allow myself to think about it”
On the contrary, the struggle is to not see it. The article's point is "color/diversity" is better than sameness.
Look again for other keywords, "sameness", "homegen"-suffixes.
E.g. The summary
> coffee shops are physical filtering algorithms, too: they sort people based on their preferences, quietly attracting a particular crowd and repelling others
There is currently a push by you know who to make “illegal aliens” a naughty word, a word that only the most ignorant would utter. They think it’s a pejorative because it’s associating everyone who enters the country (illegally) with a crime. However they’re ok with calling them all “migrants” or “asylum seekers” even though clearly, the vast majority are not. As you can probably tell, I am against this war on words, and think that you should be able to call a thing what it is.
cratermoon, you strike me as a rocket enthusiast. Take a look at a little-known rocket called "Falcon 9". Had more test failures than most rockets had launches. You can use that to help strengthen your argument that they really don't know what they're doing over there
Good point. They've been very successful with the Falcon 9. You'd think they have things like structural integrity, boost-back maneuvering, and how not to blow up figured out by now, but apparently SpaceX has different engineers working on Starship. At least the Raptor engine seems to work well. If it doesn't get concrete and rebar in it, and the fuel and oxidizer don't leak from the tanks. Aside from that, I consider the Raptor pretty darn impressive.
No offense but I think you've gotten lost in your thoughts and wrote down a response mid-conversation with yourself.
Your "complaint" has been responded to already.
The author finds it useful in the moment for himself, to better understand the topic.
The author finds it useful in the future, to reference.
Some other people may find it useful, and if you are not one of those people, no problem.
If you haven't tried this method, it's likely you are overly skeptical of it. It seems like you have an extremely high bar for anything that deserves to be written down - only that which is new, original knowledge, not written down anywhere in the total extant written history of humanity. There is an argument to be made against spam but I think you're erring on the other side.
I honestly suggest you in particular try this method. It will address your underlying concern of "rehashing" which we are doing, right now.
None taken - I wanted to ensure I reply since Decabytes put in the effort to reply in detail. In replying "to reply and acknowledge the response", I was largely redundant. I also agree that I am likely erring on the side of wanting too much from articles.
So if we criticize China we should do nothing? It’s not clear how you can be sympathetic that something should be done and against the obvious thing that should be done.
Good thing there are $200B worth of proof already. At what point would you be satisfied, if 100% of semi manufacturing took place in the US and 0 chips were manufactured elsewhere the instant the grants were handed out?
It's odd but comments like yours would normally elicit something like anger, now elicit sadness. Why do you take this tone? Why do you willfully misunderstand my point? Why not take a charitable view?
I'd be happy if even half of that money actually went into a fab, and only half was wasted on lawyers, fees, studies, and wherever else free money manages to go rather than to actually building things. The timeline doesn't matter, nor does the fraction of on-shore chips made. You created those measurements out of thin air.
I took a very charitable take of your comment, that at best can be interpreted as “this policy was completely useless” when the evidence is staring you in the face. TSMC was clearly motivated by CHIPS to build fabs in the US for dozens of billions and pocketed a fraction of that as a handout. The fact that I’m writing this obvious information down is charitable.
The CHIPS Act was marketed as an "AI cold war", and needing to bring high-tech research and production back to the US. Is is actually doing that by incentivizing companies to build leading-edge fabs in the US, or are companies just using it as free money to expand the production capacity of their trailing-edge processes?
Sure, having locally-sourced trailing-edge chips is still better than getting them from overseas, but it doesn't exactly do anything to reach the intended goals.
