Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. I do think they have a greater sense of martyrdom, being so outvoted by such an alien force. So that makes them more radical, in a way, than your typical midwestern.
  2. There’s a good chance that first woman President won’t be elected, at least initially. If Biden had been able to stave off the senior moments for a couple of years, we might have been on track for it. Or, if he had a major health event during his term.
  3. Maybe the "men should lead" mindset gives them cover for their own life decisions and situations. I'd be curious as to what the link is between women who don't work outside the home (when their kids are over the age of 14) and women who don't believe women can lead.
  4. I went the other way. Last year, around this time, when it was obvious that Trump was going to beat Biden, I got YouTubeTV to follow college football. I absolutely needed the distraction. Yeah, I still follow the news and this board, but that is not (or shouldn't be) 8 hours a day. I need something to change the brain chemistry for few hours. But to each their own. And I recognize our situations are different. McCarthyism. WW2. For a good part of our history, we would staff chain gangs breaking rocks with people picked up for loitering. I thought we were past this shit, but we aren't. The biggest difference is more people are objecting now. We know better, but still retracing those same stupid, evil steps.
  5. I wouldn't, because that would get them moving in the "right" directly ASAP. I might pretend to not understand English.
  6. I think there are two, maybe three different related markets here: AI companies, data center companies, and power companies. (I am splitting AI markets and data center markets, even though they are frequently within the same company.) The way I see this playing out is that AI will not be adopted as broadly or as quickly as needed to justify the current investments. I think it is inevitable that AI will be very valuable. For the AI companies (software), I could see large layoffs. But, not to be insensitive, I think that is almost built in to software development market. It's a game of musical chairs with 10 established companies and 500 start-ups chasing 8 chairs. It's great for the people who get the seats, but everyone else needs to make new plans. And I think those employees will have skill sets will get plugged into non-AI ventures who are looking to incorporate some AI, if that makes sense. So, short term pain, overcapacity is worked through quickly, but not devastating. I think programmers face more challenges from AI being successful than they do from it crashing in the short term. I think the biggest bubble is in the data center market. That's where we are talking about physical assets that have sunk costs and need to be maintained to keep their value. All the bigs are investing like crazy in the dc capacity to support the perceived AI wave of demand. But there are a few factors that concern me there: 1) all the big techs have oversized egos and worship the God of First2Market. Taking risks is a huge part of their culture. Anyone who would pump the breaks on something like this wouldn't earn a position to do something about it. They are Enron on steroids. 2) the big techs are valued (stock price) on their growth potential. For several of them, there is little growth in their traditional markets. Look at Microsoft. They are never going to sell more desktop computers than they do today. They are not going to sell more software for those desktops. They are not going to sell that many more X-boxes. The data center market has been their growth vehicle for several years running. Selling the growth potential of AI is a big chunk of their stock price, which means it's a big part of many workers' take-home pay. That cliff will need to be really fucking close before anyone pumps the breaks. So, I think this market will build overcapacity, crash hard, and it will take years before that extra capacity is needed. That could be a company killer. We just don't know which company(s). The data center market also has the risk of AI being more efficient than anticipated. DeepSeek should scare the shit of them. If you build a $5B machine and someone comes out with a $1B machine that could do the same thing, you're kinda fucked. That's not a perfect analogy, since your hardware could run someone else's software, but it does speak to the overall capacity. The other big mover in the data center market is crypto. That is also ripe for collapse. As far as the power market goes, we are seeing a new wave of builds being driven partially by AI. But I feel better about this market because it is also coinciding with electrification (electric car, electric stoves, heat pumps, etc.). So, if you build the infrastructure, I think the users will fill that gap pretty quickly.
  7. Undoubtedly there are investors who are using AI to suggest who they should invest in. As a pattern-filler, AI would likely suggest AI, because that is what so much of the market is doing. Once again, if you believe AI is some superior logic, that makes sense. If you see it as recognizing patterns and repackaging advice already out there, it is almost certainly a bad idea. Following patterns is what drives bubbles.
  8. I wonder how many big spenders from Asia and Europe have decided to visit friendlier countries.
  9. I don't think this is right. I think a lot of people are squeezing their perception of AI into preconceived concepts from SciFi, which depict cold, brutal logic. That's not what the current batch of AI does. It's not logical. It follows patterns from the data it is fed. If it is trained on data where the resource planning included mass killings (like the script of Avengers End Game), it might include that solution. If it trained on UN and think tank reports, it would probably produce something that looks like those. Maybe you go real deep and it trains on real world data, but generally in the real world, when there are massive population declines, it is associated with other negative metrics, like disease, crime, economic upheaval. But the big thing here is that there is no real logic here, just interpolation. As of a couple of years ago, AI models wouldn't even process large number addition consistently. That's probably been fixed, but it demonstrates the disconnect between real logic and pattern re-creation.
  10. Shit, they have Pritzker behind them. Pritzker, who'd loved to make inroads into Texas politics before a Presidential run. (I assume Texas has a shit ton of delegates and generous donors.) Nobody is sleeping on a couch.
  11. Sorry if this has been posted already, but I like this. I like this for how the Texas Democrats approach the nonsense.
  12. They believe in John 3:16. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you say the magic words, you get into heaven. The rest of the Bible is irrelevant, except for when they want to judge someone else. I'm guessing Trump believes in heaven. To believe otherwise would be to accept his mortality.
  13. Ok, Bill Clinton vs. idiot Republican Congressmen should a pay-per-view event. The dude is old, and a scumbag, but is still much smarter than any of them.
  14. The two-party system is inevitable, given our political structure. Environment drives evolution. Our political environment is mostly driven by the structure of our government - namely the direct-ish election of the President and the power that position holds. I don't believe a third party has survived (been relevant) for more than two cycles because it just doesn't work for our structure. You see across world parliamentary systems where multiple parties survive and influence policy. That ain't us, not because the Democrats or Republicans, or the Electoral College, or gerrymandering. It's the environment we built and are very unlikely to unbuild without some major, painful event. Too many stakeholders with too much power for it to change. And given the current political environment, the idea of major constitutional changes scares the shit out of me. Absolutely. But the pushback would be for part of the reason I like it: it would dilute the small-state advantage for the electoral college. The other reason for the pushback is most Reps prefer being one of 435 to being one of 2000. A lot more power in the former. You'd need to get people to vote themselves out of their current job into one with less power and prestige. But I do love the idea that more, smaller elections would increase the relative power of boots on the ground, meeting the people directly, rather than large marketing campaigns. And, of course, neutering gerrymandering.
  15. If she had a dick, she might be in the White House.
  16. Tuco

    Israel

    I think what you do and who you target still matter even if a lack of a standing army affects how you do it. For example, I can see certainly see an argument for flying a commercial jet into the Pentagon. We would bomb enemy military headquarters and accept significant civilian casualties to do it. The difference is more about the "how you do it" vs "who you target", and we have more options that Al Qaeda. The Twin Towers is harder to rationalize, but I get that Al Qaeda sees Corporate America as part of the war. I'm not saying 9/11 is justified, but I don't think that argument comes down to how it was carried out. But targeting kids, no. Rape, no. Hamas doesn't get a pass for that. And Israel doesn't get a pass for targeting civilians just because Hamas targeted civilians. But, more to my point of the Algerian reference, I think ultimately it will cost they much more than it helps them. Bibi is making October 7th effective in its goal. I should give that a go. Thanks.
  17. Maybe avoiding state charges should fed charges evaporate.
  18. Tuco

    Israel

    I did some reading on the Algerian independence movement recently. Basically, the "bad guys" (the Algerians) had the strategy to do something terrible, which provoked the French into doing something terrible, which undermined the general support for the French (both in France and Algeria), which lead to the Algerian independence. The bad guys won by provoking the "good guys" to be just as terrible. I think Hamas was following a similar script and it might actually be effective. I mean, the UK may actually recognize Palestine as a country. To me the big difference between now and 60 years ago is whether general support can erode based on reporting, because of how fragmented news media is now. There has always been a segment of reporting sympathetic to the Palestinians and there will always be a segment willing to rationalize whatever Israel does. The atrocities may not really move the needle as much as they once did.
  19. Keep in mind people still love the Royal Family. In 2025. I don’t get it. But it’s worth acknowledging that for some fucked up reason a big percentage of people admire the ultra wealthy who didn’t do shit to earn it. I don’t think you’ll find political movement in going after random CEOs. I would love to be proven wrong.
  20. Maybe it would be helpful if you said specifically which Dem policies you have an issue with. “Culture War” is a very broad term.
  21. The biggest thing that will hurt Trump is an economic downturn. Even with all the Epstein shit lately, Trump's polling is better than when the stock market lost money during his initial tariff push. So, on a personal level, consider pushing off big purchases until there is a change. As far as the Dems go, they need to learn to communicate economic concerns better. The GOP did a great job of making 2024 seem like economic turmoil. Since Trump has been elected, the DJIA has risen less than 2% in six months, which is pretty lackluster. The USD has dropped 10% against the Euro, 7.4% against the Pound, and even 2% against the struggling Yuan. Unemployment has ticked up slightly (4.0% to 4.1%). There is plenty to work with here to communicate that Trump is bad (or at least not particularly good) for the economy. Yet the Democrats need to be pushing this. They need to break this perception that Republicans are better for the economy. As far breaking ties with billionaires, that is easier said than done. Politics is very expensive and keeps getting more expensive. If the Dems are ever in the position to effect policy changes that take money out of politics, they should definitely do so. But until then, they need every resource they can get. Many candidates have sworn off corporate donations, which already puts them at a disadvantage. I think Democrats need to change their messaging around corporations. I think people not in the corporate world underestimate the effect corporate propaganda has on millions of workers/voters. Most people want their corporation to make money. They perceive it as more money and more security for them. Pounding the podium and shouting "...just so corporations can make more money" is not the zinger a lot of politicians think it is, because that is exactly the goal that millions of workers have, because corporations have spent a lot money to drive that goal into their heads. I think less focus on the profits and more focus on the negative aspects (pollution, harm to citizens, whatever) is important. Also, this us vs. corporations is part of the reason why many voters think Republicans are better on the economy, despite all evidence to the contrary. I sound more centrist than I am. I'm trying to be pragmatic here because I am tired of losing to shitstains. But honestly, I think how (what media) Democrats communicate is probably a bigger issue than what they are communicating. The message is not hitting. Not sure how to solve that.
  22. Never underestimate the subtle beauty of a Cleveland winter. Extremely subtle.
  23. It also demonstrates the inability of the Democrats* to either identify an effective softspot or to get into people's social media feeds to exploit it. Admittedly, I didn't think this would be a surprise to anyone, but I am not paid to evaluate that kind of thing. *In this instance, "Democrats" means the consulting firms that the Democratic candidates frequently use.
  24. This is spot on. Someone was telling me the other day that Americans "believed in fairness" (while explaining why he thought some support for Trump would erode.) I had to chuckle. Go watch a football game in any sports bar and get back to me on how the fans viewed a controversial call. "Fairness" is quite flexible, depending on whether it helps or hurts your team.
  25. I was thinking about this. The same mindset that wouldn't let him admit to a mistake regarding a Hurricane hitting Alabama is probably the same thing that will keep him from releasing an unredacted Epstein file that would mention him, even if that mention isn't incriminating. There are no shades of grey.
×
×
  • Create New...