Nice idea. How does the provider receive the order from customer? Is it through phone call, or via some other app? If it is an app, won't that app have a status tracking feature?
Finding patterns and information using machines, in a seemingly random noise should no longer be a surpise, much the same way as lifting tonnes of weight using a crane is no longer a surprise.
It shows that the human quest has been in wrong direction since the industrial age began. Domains like math and other inter-connected or inter-dependent domains - all exist in modern times only to keep people employed outside of basic work such as farming and survival. All of these domains can be removed and humans can still continue with their lives taking care of what really is needed for their survival and sprawl. 99% of the "work" that happens today is froth, disconnected from basic needs.
You can remove pretty much everything in the modern world, from cars to computers etc.. and humans would still continue with their lives. Such and argument is only anti-progress.
>> You realise the extent to which the world around is sometime quite precariously perched on these supply chains.
As s child, I lived in a world where there were no supply chains, no marketing and no advertising. Profit-based business was seen a mean thing to do.
City living and desire for goods from far away lands - created supply chains which dictate how people should live, in a precariously dependent way such that they can't make their needed things on their own and they can't have them made them locally. What a progress.
Unless you lived thousands of years ago, there was a supply chain. For bread there was a farmer, a miller, and a baker. That's a supply chain. And they were even more profit hungry back then, adulterating the flour with fillers to save money.
They are not being sarcastic. My grandparents lived in a place like this - the old ways have been forgotten by most but in my family you only have to go back two generations before it's all pretty much living off the land...
Game engines, AI, robots and machines in general are establising a "goal horizon" for humans. This is unnecessary and counter productive way of using tools. Tools are supposed to work for us, not set goals or direction for us.
But as technology progresses and becomes more advanced, it does seem to set goals in all directions in that seems inevitable if we continue to 'collaborate' with modern technology. I mean, we no longer develop tools to help us out really, if you think about it. We develop tools to get ahead of other tools, to be faster than them, to protect ourselves from still other tools.
I'd argue that as we condition ourselves into a state of constant development, we shouldn't even call these things "tools" anymore, but pieces of an organism that spurn us to upgrade and complete it at every step.
Tools working for us only applies to local, simple tools that one person or a small communiity can basically understand and make, like a hammer. That's a tool. I wouldn't call a computer a tool any more just like I wouldn't say that our brain is merely a tool. It's more: it's an extension of us and even an integral part of us that modifies our very instincts and desires itself.
We shouldn't condition ourselves to keep transforming these tools unto our masters. That's the point I was making. We don't the "goal horizon" that is reachable to machines but too far away for humans. There is no point in having that. Goals should be reachable to humans. Humans never needed deal with numbers larger than a few thousand. Centralization is driving the demand for super-human capabilities.
Light doesn't have a "speed" as in the usual meaning of the word "speed". Talking about speed requires defining spatial distances and time durations, which are in turn defined or created by the phenomenon of light.
Light doesn't "travel". It's just an exchange of entangled photons creating the concept of time duration and distance.
Not quite when considering China having the tech freedom they wanted. Also switching internet services is far easier than switching physical supply chains. The only thing that might be hard to switch is the part of the interent backbone infra that is controlled by USA.
You are not living in Europe, right? Because while I agree that China is a problem, the USA is a much, much bigger problem for Europeans than China is right now. It's mostly the USA that wants to depict China as the main problem when in reality the USA behaves in a hugely aggressive colonial manner. Trump just makes this more obvious, but that has been the case way before Trump already.
Please speak for yourself. Not everyone in Europe thinks US is bigger problem than China. For many China is far bigger geopolitical threat since they openly support Russia in its current war.
It does actually matter that the US president is continually deriding Europe and making weird threats in English language social media where we can see it, while the Chinese leadership is politely selling us discounted cars.
(When is the first war going to be started purely downstream of social media beef? Was it arguably the Iran war?)
Well, yes, that's a huge structural problem in many American cities. When people perceive the police as more of a threat than crime, the situation deteriorates. Somehow "make the police trustworthy" isn't considered an option.
In this metaphor the police are corrupt, running a protection racket, and might get drunk and shoot you while your dealer is in the mafia. The mafia link might be a problem at some point but the person with the badge and the gun is a problem right now.
My hope as an American is that China's growing power will bring Europe and the US closer together.
It's true that MAGA craziness has pushed Europe aways from us. But, ironically, Europe increasing defense spending and standing up an independent military machine will actually make some MAGA people like Europe more.
But either way, the best thing for both the US and Europe is to figure out a way to reconcile. The alternative is a Europe-China alliance (which would be bad for Europe) or a US-China alliance (which would be horrific for Europe).
As a European that lives 200km from the Russian border it seems the USA has been supporting Russia in its current war a lot more than China.
Consider these points:
- US withdrawing it's "Intel support" just as Russia started a major offensive last year.
- US starting the war on Iran clearly to help their pal Putin on oil prices, now they try to use Ukraine as a scapegoat for "attacking Russian oil export infrastructure"
- Another "side effect" of war in Iran. No more patriots or modern weapons for any country that ordered them from the USA in recent years and was expecting deliveries just about now.
- US committing actual act of war (threatening force has been considered an act of war for centuries) against the EU by talking about invading Greenland (most certainly if Russia attacked Estonia US would try their luck with Greenland on same day, does it remind you anything from history?)
- US essentially waging an economic war on the rest of NATO.
- US companies with full support of the state trying to deny computing hardware to the rest of the world in hope they manage to monopolise compute capability using AI as cover (yes China is a real ally in this).
And much more.
Yes, the US is a much higher threat to the EU than China now.
US motives are currently inscrutable, but the US is sending military hardware to Ukraine, whereas China is sending dual-use hardware to Russia. You can see an itemised list of US contributions at the following link. It's not nothing.
Overall I agree with you, but I'd be wary of taking these numbers at face value. For instance, $20b of America's $65b aid contribution comes from a loan that's repaid by selling off sanctioned Russian assets. Many of the weapon systems sent over are decades old, but valued at the price the US paid for it in the 1980s/1990s.
Side-by-side with, for example, itemized Israeli aid, it's pretty clear which conflict the US is putting on the back-burner.
> it seems the USA has been supporting Russia in its current war a lot more than China
Don't be ridiculous. The US literally provides targeting information to Ukraine, including for long-range missile strikes deep inside Russia earlier this year.
This is incredibly inaccurate. China is why Russia is still even in the war and is still a functioning country. The EU itself supports Russia much more than the US does with its energy imports.
Some of that alleged "support" for Russia would be more accurately described as a failure to support Ukraine. But most states outside of Europe are failing to support Ukraine.
BTW, Zelenskyy supports the Iranian opposition, possibly due to the fact that the current Iranian regime is sending Shaheds to Russia. The US has attacked Shahed factories during the current Iran war.
> it seems the USA has been supporting Russia in its current war a lot more than China.
No way that's true.
China is main ally of Russia. China have a huge economic exchange with Russia, China is the sole gateway to technology for Russia, and provide a great amount of political support for Russia.
Even if we are comparing USA and EU in those aspects, EU's support of Russia is way bigger. EU spends huge amounts of money for purchasing energy resources from Russia, EU spends far less money on help against Russian invasion than US (although EU's population is larger, and that issue is way more pressing for them).
I mean look at the numbers: EU spends on confrontation with Russia less money, than they have spent on economic crisis in Greece or something. That is how they perceive this problem and how "important" it is to them.
I live in Europe and me and most of my friends (which of course are not representative of the whole population) consider the US a larger threat than China. On the other hand the US is a pretty aggressive country that has been supporting coup-de-etats and starting wars for more than a century. The current president has an open expansionist vision that includes European territories (Greenland), has started a war that is fucking up the world economy (Iran) and could start WWII, is supporting a genocide in Gaza, has an ambivalent position about Ukraine (and all the post-soviet foreign policy of the US over two decades have probably contributed to this situation), completely disregards current most existential threat to humanity (climate change), openly supports neo-fascist groups in Europe like the AfD, Vox, etc.
Meanwhile China exports cheap stuff, is leading the world efforts developing green technologies, is leading the efforts democratizing AI technologies, and doesn't bully people around with their army.
Sure the US, with its bipartisan system, is barely more democratic than China, but should also judge countries by their actions not just their deliberation process.
If you "rationally" decide to kill me, I'd rather you had been told by "god" not to kill me, even if I don't believe in god and generally think that non-theistic morality is better and more democratic.
Honestly, I had the impression that the current US regime also supports Russia in its current war. Did they not ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some? As far as I remember, that was in a form almost like an ultimatum, too.
China might be a bigger threat, but I find it hard to believe that this would be the reason.
European governments still importing Russian fuel. Not that it matters much as fuel is mostly fungible, if Europe imported from elsewhere for a higher price they’d be the middle man.
> Did they not ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some?
Ukraine is never going to retake the territory they've lost without European soldiers on the ground. Macron famously said that he would have to send troops to Odesa and yet 3 years later there are still no French troops in Ukraine. Meanwhile Putin has captured even more land and is now actively bombarding Kyiv.
It is painfully obvious that Europe lacks the political will to do any kind of substantial intervention. The war is at a complete standstill and it will last for another horrible decade if no concessions are made.
Not being able to take the territory, having a ceasefire over the territory, and actually conceding the territory are three different things. The world is full of unceded occupied areas. Korea. Taiwan. Northern Cyprus. Palestine. Nagorno-Karabakh. Transnistria.
Ukraine rightly has no interest in ceding land to achieve a temporary ceasefire to allow Russia to re-arm and then attack again.
Meanwhile it is also important that we don't have two nuclear armed states (France and Russsia) officially at war.
I'm not excited to have France and Russia in direct conflict, but having two nuclear states at war would not be anything new. There's been China/USSR, India/Pakistan, India/China, and if you want to consider wars that mostly exist on paper at this point, North Korea/USA.
>The war is at a complete standstill and it will last for another horrible decade if no concessions are made.
There is a slight hope that the current Russian regime will collapse before then and be replaced by one that doesn't want to continue the war. (Though, that said, it could equally well be replaced by a regime that's even more ultranationalist than the current one.)
While Europe certainly does lack the political will to make a substantial intervention, it's not just a question of political will. There is the small matter of not starting the third world war to consider.
> Did they not ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some?
I mean what are the alternatives? Ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some, but later, when several more millions of Ukrainian men would be grabbed by Ukrainian gestapo from the streets like rabid animals and killed?
Because with current support from the EU (that is less then EU support for Greece during economic crisis), that is the only alternative.
This is all in your head. We just expect people in Europe to begin picking up more of the tab for things like NATO, and don't want our enemies (your enemies if in western/central Europe too, BTW) to get control of future energy/minerals. You call it "aggressive colonial control", Americans call it "time for Europe to accept more financial and personal responsibility.
I'm from Europa and consider China a far bigger threat. Trump is probably going to get replaced by a Democrat in a few years. China has been ruled by dictators for decades and probably will be for decades and they are a lot more hostile to democratic nations.
For European governments that have their email and such running with Microsoft, it's quite the signal when individuals lose their email because the US doesn't like them. See international criminal court.
I think it’s fair to say the U.S. and Russia are Europe’s principal geopolitical adversaries, today, while for anyone in Asia or Oceania it’s China. (Africa and South America are being weirdly carved up—it’s not particularly clear who is trying to colonize versus trade with them.)
In the way slavery and employment are similar, sure. In practice they’re very different things, even if one—when taken to the extreme—can turn into the other.
Both claims can be correct. US became Europe's adversary, quite active and pushy. We don't know yet where the end of backstabbing and shitting on us lies, we can easily have a war ie over Greenland within 2 years.
China? It wants to sell its cars here, and thats about it. Incomparable.
China isn't a big bully for European nations cause it's counterbalanced by USA, not of inherent niceness. Also in two years there will be a different president in White house, but in Beijing things aren't that fluid.
US is also nice to others only because it benefits it long term ie in building and maintaining its hegemony, fighting for petrodollars and so on. Now that it shat on those decades of hard-won fights and alignment thats irrelevant thing of the past.
Ask/look around in places that dared to stood apart or directly up to whatever US wanted, the story is everything but nice and bloodless. Ask those that fought for them, and were completely abandoned to be then murdered one by one (vietnam, afghanistan).
Rest of your post is just wishful thinking, US is in semi-lawless state now with new oligarchy ruling the country based on emotions and whims and hardly any laws, so prior experiences do not guarantee any form of future. I personally would literally, objectively, trust Xi more than trump if I had to choose (which I don't, nobody does), any day any night.
USA fluctuates expanding, and diminishing its power mainly because it's typical for electoral democracies to change its course with higher frequency.
It's friendly to Europe most of the time, and hostile at times. It's culturally closer, and functionally democratic. You quite obviously don't like the latter statement, but it is, and it is verifiable claim.
1) Can an American sue the country's gov't and win?
2) Is said gov't changeable by the way of elections?
3) How easy it is to participate in political debates for electoral outcomes?
On all 3 USA gets pretty high score. In high contrast against the backdrop of China. Like, if you prefer a world hegemon who is actively imperialist, and contra democracy, cause you're so outraged by the orange man - that's your choice, of course. But let's not pretend the choice is well-thought. Were HN a Chinese place, and you dared to criticize Chinese imperialism your account would not remain unpunished for long, for instance.
When Trump talks about doing the anti colonial thing and withdrawing troops from European soil, the response is outrage.
But I've learnt that iPhones and social media is American imperialism, but thousands of troops in dozens of military bases on European soil is not, somehow.
> thousands of troops in dozens of military bases on European soil is not, somehow
Presence of allies is not colonialism. Threat to annex Greenland is. Threat to annex Canada is. Keeping pet dictator in Venezuela and taking their oil is.
On the other hand, when Germans, France and other European soldiers came to Greenland to defend against an American threat, it was not colonialism. It was being allies.
> and withdrawing troops from European soil, the response is outrage.
The response to withdrawing troops from European soil was mockery and frustration from army that is loosing valuable bases. Either way, it is not an anti-colonial thing.
> When Trump talks about doing the anti colonial thing
Trump is modern colonialist. He is not talking about doing "the anti colonial thing" ever, instead he is bragging about making America colonial.
------
Trying to frame Trump as somehow anti-colonial is really new level of post-fact dishonesty. It does not work, because his appeal is based on dominance, violence and willingness to steal.
Which way is it: Allies or a threat? How much double-think can you fit within a comment?
To me the question is crystal clear: No country should want to have foreign troops permanently stationed on their soil, no matter how good friends they are.
Not to mention, the idea that Germany, 3rd or 4th largest economy on Earth, cannot defend itself on its own and needs American troops "to defend itself" is just ridiculous.
The Americans are there as a front of US empire (IIRC Rammstein is being used for Iran war).
> Which way is it: Allies or a threat? How much double-think can you fit within a comment?
America was a trusted, respected and liked allied nation. It was not a threat. Then Trump supported by people like you turned into a threat to Canada (another former ally), Greenland, democracy and freedom. So, America is not respected or liked, except by neo-nazi it supports. There is no double think involved here.
> To me the question is crystal clear: No country should want to have foreign troops permanently stationed on their soil, no matter how good friends they are.
It is irrelevant what you think about what other countries should or should not want. The question is what is colonialism.
The standard strategy of a security salesman since 1945. Develop dangerous weapons, show the damage they can do, and sell security cover to the terrified people.
Every single piece of technology did this. As a side effect or direct effect, they make bad guys more powerful and then keep on piling up new tech to deal with that. The cycle continues.
reply