OK, I think I’ve lost track of what I was arguing. F-35 is fine.

It’s just that strategic reliance upon such a complex system intuitively seems bad without some Russian\Iranian style main scalable cheap body, which is also what Ukraine has, Turkey has and what USA is building. Basically everyone with a pretense at having self-sufficient military.

What would EU countries do if right now a mass of cheap drones, cruise missiles and stormtroopers started moving their way?

Because it’s all trade and balance, so it’s probable that such a window into the world (which will have its own censorship) might be allowed. Probably throttled. Probably allowed and throttled depending on some kind of social rating and individual permissions.

Unlike Tor, it’s not escaping censorship, it’s one portal (it’s in the name) somehow allowing access to a few select “free speech” (quotes mandatory no matter how you feel about actual free speech) directions.

USSR had tourist permissions and allowed directions, and friendly socialist countries for which it was easier to get such a permission, and unfriendly capitalist countries for which it was pretty rare and involved state security following you, and so on.

This might be similar.

If you don’t see how something can be divided into levels of access for different citizens, then that’s just lack of imagination. They will think of a way.

Honestly calling a country that can afford even a single F-35 small seems strange. And having only one doesn’t make sense. You need to rotate them for maintenance, have a few up at once (at least 2) for basic tactics, so it seems having less than 8 fighters is just not enough. And then you need jet fuel, missiles, ground systems, avionics, radars, all up-to-date.

In a world with tightly regulated Internet this might start making sense. Tor and its traffic won’t make it through AI-assisted censorship systems like China’s GFW and Russia’s whatever-it’s-called-but-they’ve-started-breaking-everything-here. While a portal managed by foreign superpower’s government might be allowed simply because of diplomatic pressure.

Not too different from how radio became regulated all over the world.

It’s a shame, but what can you do. We are not demiurges, we are grains of sand flying with the wind and floating with the current. Sometimes we get melted, sometimes split, sometimes wet, cold, hot.

I’m not ashamed of dreaming of a different future and arguing in favor of it many years ago. But I’m also not ashamed to admit I was likely wrong.

That might just make weirder rigs come to existence.

Multi-user memory-protected operating systems of the “rich” have spread to the machines for the “poor”, simply because it’s work that can be reused.

If there’ll be enough RAM of a certain interface standard on the market due to that being used by all the AI hardware, it will eventually start making sense to produce personal hardware supporting it.

We’re not dealing with people in possession of any type of rationality, here.

It seems they are rationally putting pressure upon those willing to own guns or 3d printers.

Like most of rifle shots fired in WWI didn’t kill anyone and were meant for suppression.

Making you afraid of everything that can be a legal trap. Thus possibly dropping the thought of even owning this or that thing.

Anyway, nothing about quantum entanglement suggests zero latency, it’s just a fancy name, in fact it’s two things with synchronized states.

Even with capitalism there is distributivism and there is “neoliberal” capitalism and there is mercantilism and oligopolism. The former two don’t become worse or better from automation. More likely better. The latter two become worse because everything new is power-guarded from benefiting anyone other than elites having power.

It’s the old question that was being explored in science fiction even before computers. It just took hundred years to reach the problem itself.

As far as I understand this, it’s not zero latency, it’s safer key exchange possible for some encryption based on a physical and not mathematical principle.

Would be cool, of course, if they really could achieve zero latency. That could do wonders to various infrastructure efficiency. Say, allow for electric grids and internet backbone lines to know of spreading load changes to optimize for them.

It was Dutch F-35s that shot down the Russian drones over Poland.

The dirt cheap drones, those of them that diverted by error or malfunction from their intended targets, that is, inside margin of error.

Using F-35s to shoot down that in an actual war with waves of those drones seems inefficient. Paying more than the attack costs. Raising a jet costs fuel and maintenance. It’s purely a very expensive peacetime solution near a conflict. Those drones should have been intercepted by ground AD batteries. Which in case of being a war participant and not a neighbor you will need.

Yeah, they do need a stealth jet. Stealth is what lets you fire your missiles before the enemy even knows you’re there.

As a strategic weapon yes.

OK, as part of common European defense yes, it’s just that it’s still not unified enough it seems. Perhaps a common European military with mandatory training and reserve enlistment for citizens, standardized equipment and procedures (OK, that already exists), united command and proscription and budget, would be better. Because when it’s decided by separate governments, you end up with F-35s shooting down random drones being used as a proof that the system works.

That would mean, of course, turning the EU into a confederation from a union.

Do Netherlands need a stealth jet at all? Perhaps a fleet of cheap drones is better.

I mean, in some “global power projection” context like USA or thinking of readiness for total war like Israel, those jets are not optional.

But the threat model of Netherlands is which? Considering it doesn’t even have mandatory military training.

Never could. Power of thousands of paid developers against a few. That’s like finding all needles in a haystack, and power determines the size of that haystack and the amount of needles.

You can’t use something that cost that much to make and expect to divert from what the producers intended.

Everyone making stuff wants arbitrary power application, so it happens. That’s how the world works.

Also people without wisdom are sometimes still very intelligent. In nature viruses that kill everything don’t survive because they kill everything. In human societies a huge part of those intelligent enough want to kill everything they don’t like. Or to kill all their enemies they can. They don’t think what happens next, where the emptiness is filled by something they haven’t evolved their tactics for. Something less predictable than what they are fighting now.

I’m thinking of Israelis right now, but it happens everywhere, the general consensus becoming that you should kill all you can of what you don’t like.

I mean, were they intelligent they’d understand this, it would seem, and at the same time there’s an unexpected direction from which disagreement comes - Tolkien’s thing in the ending of LOTR where Gandalf says about future generations having different weeds to root out from their fields, and that not being the responsibility of the current generation. So i don’t know.

Perhaps everyone is becoming wiser and I’m a fool.

Anyway. The Nazi model of society, which is most similar to this, has failed. Not because of a war lost, as it was spreading to many other countries and wasn’t really abruptly removed from Germany after that war. Simply because it became inefficient. It was phased out, slowly replaced. I think that’s what will happen here too. But that might be another 20-30-40 years, so we are going to live in a not very nice world.

About Israel - perhaps in such a world I’ll move there. I don’t like the general worldview of people living there, it’s really fascist, but in a miserable way, I’d prefer something like the atmosphere in Foucault’s Pendulum by Eco if we have to do fascism. I don’t like that most Israelis I’ve met perceive civilized discussion as an insult. But if I’m going to have children some day, they’d rather be among “their own tribe” by those rules which are coming to prevalence everywhere.

With F-35’s costs, is it really the best equipment? I suspect the real reason is that replacing it is a gigantic undertaking that might be far more expensive short-term.

The components dependency part in fighter jets, though, is something they really should be able to solve. Those are very complex systems, but designed with integration and customization in mind. That’s one of the reasons they are so expensive. Slowly replacing everything in them with components from more reliable producers is normal for militaries. Well, for militaries with actual RnD and production, of course Uzbekistan or Colombia can’t do that, but Netherlands can.

Sailfish is not very alive. Ubuntu Touch too.

But honestly yes. I think the problems are mostly in hardware support.

A “wild experiment” of using N bots in a game.

Every Jedi Outcast multiplayer melee in my childhood was more interesting than today’s news.

That would truly be a public service.

Well, if we continue my analogy, government-run oil processing plants and gasoline subsidies have not historically worked well.

It’s a device of investing hard power into computing.

That cropland will repurpose itself by market laws if the change is so dramatic, I think it is. I don’t like the AI hype, but the major change of converting hard power into data and data into answers to questions is potent enough. It’s not just the difference in energy volumes between ethanol and solar power, it’s also that liquid fuel is easier to store. It’s not an equal comparison you’re making. But if the energy demand is skewed enough on the side of grid-connected datacenters, then economically solar power might become more attractive.

I think oligopoly on data is the main threat to this. Datacenters and hosters providing power to run whatever you want with whatever data you want are not the bottleneck for competition and good evolution.

Various data harvesting farms in which users roam are.

It’s funny, I’m optimistic lately and feel like this family of technologies is slowly killing the oligopolies of previous generation. Well, not themselves, but the mechanisms that brought them into existence. Of course they too have moved on past those, but it’s sort of an improvement.

Ah, in that dimension what I see seems similar to oil processing, again. They are generally all similar. Better datasets - better output. A natural curve of expenses and results.

A competitive open-source LLM makes sense ; but the real asset is data. So said LLM will be hosted (or provided with computing power) commercially to work on said processed data, usually. There are no anarchist free gas stations, and just like that it will be a building block of businesses.

It would be similar to an ethical LLM, but the question is not in ethics, it’s in having more structure. Sort of granularity. That could allow to scrape knowledge and reproduce it in some way better than just an LLM output. Such a thing could be both a model and an associative dictionary, a bit like automated Wikipedia.

I found it to be just Google made more convenient, which is good, but not there yet.

I know LLMs will get worse and shittier, which I think is a bummer, because they could be so damned useful.

Why would they? Humans keep producing new data. Old datasets will get less useful. They do all the time. And the old approach to training. But fundamentally they shouldn’t get worse.

Yes, so there was a time when I was dreaming day and night about something like those LLMs, but for archiving knowledge. That is, archiving existing statements with subjects and objects and relations, a bit more high-level and less generalized than LLMs. Syllogisms, semantic relationships, distances in application. Sort of what holocrons are in Star Wars.