I know that for land mines this is true.
However it’d be interesting to know if its also possible for naval mines… which are a few magnitudes bigger and also usually rely on an anker (ofter heavy) to stay in position.
Given the high weight I’m sceptical if a naval minefield can be achieved by missle transport.
Having the same thought.
If capitalism eats its own children it might force the world to use FOSS and non-proprietary company structures.
True
To be honest I think this is a cyclic process only being interrupted when inequality and welfare become shitty enough to push a majority of individuals out of their comfort zone… that’s when revolutions happen. Ealier I don’t expect anything to change as the biggest players are allowed to continously shape the system in their favor.
Isn’t this the exact same thing happening durin all other finance crashes in the last decades? I don’t think the modus operandi is much different.
Crisis?
Illegal war of aggression against all international law.
FIFY.
For whom?
Europe most probably. This will strenghten right wing parties and weaken thr union… win-win. While the majority of EU is licking US boots after they started a war of agression against a sovereign nation with little to no justification of any kind… I’m tired Boss.
Yep, with the small flaw that the US nursed an anti-democratic dictatorship in the process… which kind of led to the problem nobody was willing to defend it after the US retreated.
The expats armed with guns, explosives and camo uniforms caught by the cuban coast guard last week already sounded like something Trump and Vance could imagine as ,super secret CIA destabilizing operation".
Doesn’t this boil down to self-censorship in public? Better not critizise the government in public becaus you never know whos waring smart glasses…
I’m in favor of your position but this
You can either believe the shit you just said
is just rude and that way, you won’t generate support for your position among people who don’t already agree with you. I think that’s counterproductive, because cooperation is the most effective weapon you have against a repressive state.
I asked a simple question to understand the situation and you start insulting me.
My argument would be that people definitely would make bad decisions in the beginning. But that wouldn’t be that far off of the status quo, would it?
My hope would be that this system gives an incentive to ACTUALLY get informed about the matter you vote on since you’re actively choosing to get involved instead of voting on every topic (also the ones you have 0.0 interest in) every 4 years. Another point, which may be a bit far fetched idk, could be that you theoretically could use LLMs to summarize the various proposed solutions and their justifications. In the system I have in mind, the experts you mentioned would also submit proposed solutions.
Based on your example:
Problem formulated for the petition: “Rents are too high.”
If the petition goes through, anyone could propose solutions. For example, “rent control” (proposed by someone on the left), “foreigners out” (proposed by someone on the right), “revise building standards and invest in public housing” (an expert).
The population might follow the populists at first… However, if the problem is not solved after 10 years, you can’t blame “those at the top” for the solution not working, and hopefully there will be a rethink.
Maybe this is just a utopian fantasy of mine. But I have the feeling that our democratic systems are not up to the challenges of the digitalized 21st century and growing inequality… this is the best solution I have come up with so far.
Isn’t it the other way round: ICE pruposely bullys blue states (Among other reasons, because the red states need illegal immigrants as laborers) ?
Create an open source platform where everyone can vote on every matter. Matter to be voted on are chosen by petitions. If a petition indicates societal need for change (x supporters in y time frame) anyone can propose a solution. Then a vote is taken. The solution with the most votes is implemented. If there is a new petition on the same topic, the fun starts all over again.
Advantages from my point of view:
No potentially corrupt representatives
No deflection of one’s own bad voting decisions (aka. it’s the fault of those at the top)
Citizens once again have a motivation to inform themselves about issues more than just once every four years.
Will everyone always be able to vote on everything? Certainly not, as individuals’ time and resources are limited. Therefore, those who vote on a decision are likely to be affected by it themselves, or at least feel that they are. In this way, people who have informed themselves beforehand, or at least would do so, tend to vote more.
We would use the real-time communication possibilities that the internet has given us for something positive instead of slop and brain rot.
My problem with anonymous leaders is that we’d completely lose track of who’s to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.
A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.
A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas… the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical… we’d basically use capitalism against bribery.
Maybe by advancing our democracies in the same way the technology to divide and rule us is advancing.
Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.
II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.
Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.
I get your point. But the question that comes to my mind: Is your experience with the world a reason to devalue his excitement for his ,old boring" quarry? Does one always need to chase the ,best and biggest" things in life to be content an ought to feel imperfect if he/she didn’t experience them? I’m fairly sure you didn’t mean it this way but to me it sounds like you belittle others due to the fact that you believe to know better… and that, frankly said, is also something not to be celebrated.
I don’t mean to attack you but I’m curious weather you thought about these aspects?
Good. Push the oil price so more people are willing to convert to solar & EV faster.
I think both can be true at the same time. While Irans target as part of the China-Russia-Iran coalition obviosuly cant’t be bombing of Iran I wouldn’t be suprised if there are at least thoughts about letting the US bleed in a war of attrition, especially from the Chinese side. Ot honestly would be rational to make the best use of the situation.
I think he has a verry good point there. Imho many people, unlike their parents/ gradparents, have forgotten how brutal and unraveling war is and how much suffering it brings upon others which lose dear family members and/or their health.
This might be largely due to mass media showing only piles of rubble and not the human misery underneath and infront of it because it’s deemed ,to upsetting" for the broad public. But that misery is on of the core points why we once intended to end all wars. There are exceptions of course (like some well made documentaries) but one has to actually search for them and expose oneself willingly… when in reality the matter should concern each and every one of us.