Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Asianometry" channel.

Polonium isn't used as a weapon of mass or even local destruction, it's used for assassination operations.
1
@Barnaclebeard Yeah, so? Titans are from Greek mythology, and Giants are from Norse and many other mythologies. So?
1
@danielch6662 'and then raising the fertility rate back up' - yeah good luck with that. No nation has managed to figure out how to do that, despite many years of trying.
1
@what.the..6990 Because they do whatever their American masters expect them to, even without being told. Including even going to war. If the US makes this an issue, you can bet the UK will too.
1
@what.the..6990 It isn't just China that the UK has followed the US on. And have you met dog owners? Some treat their pets well, while others very much don't. Not that the UK is abused, but they aren't pampered either. That is hardly atypical for pet owners
1
@nobodynoone2500 I think you need to retake school English class bro. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
1
@DK-ev9dg I think that's Russia, albeit a lot of it is frozen.
1
@eddiehimself No I think they didn't do it cos it'd be an unwinnable war that would see millions die, nukes or no nukes. Nations aren't generally keen to start massive wars that they're not confident they can win funnily enough. Your cynical thesis has literally already failed before. What prevents war isn't just nuclear parity, but parity in general. Which explains why they only ever went to war with far weaker nations. The only one projecting here is you. Ironically the people who keep claiming that nukes save lives are also the people who put their foot down and insist no one else get to have them. If you like nukes so much, stop trying to prevent more nations having them.
1
@eddiehimself "its nuclear arsenal does not pose an existential threat to India" - lmao! Do you even know what nukes are?! Sure, let's just write off millions of deaths just cos India has more people. Nukes don't work as an 'existential threat' to any of the superpowers either then, since even in a full scale exchange they'll still have survivors. You haven't proven your rule to begin with, to begin speaking of any exceptions to it.
1
@eddiehimself In addition to which your vaunted 'most powerful nations' aren't some magical different breed of state. If the theory is so good at preventing war, then you shouldn't be against other nations having them. Yet hypocritically they are. And why stop at nukes? Let's maintain stockpiles of biological weapons too! It's called 'MAD', so let's go full-on mad at it.
1
@eddiehimself Also note that America has already undermined the very basis for the MAD doctrine when it exited the ABMT (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) in 2002. So not even the nation that's supposed to be held back by the MAD doctrine has held to it. When even the nation that created the concept of MAD doesn't believe in its value anymore, that shows that it's all hogwash.
1
@hari4406 "Pakistan caused issues that led to war. India was only defending itself." - I did not dispute the causes of the war. I just pointed that a war still happened despite both parties being nuclear states. According to nuclear evangelists nukes would ensure that neither side does that.
1
@hari4406 By your own admission, the US isn't really respecting MAD by advancing closer to Russia, without letting Russia do the same. In addition, as pointed out above, their exit from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty also shows they won't let MAD stand Besides that I don't see where this idea that nukes somehow only work for superpowers comes from. As if less powerful nations are somehow more suicidal or something. The money spent on wars is irrelevant to the issue of nukes being a major danger that's supposed to, in theory, hold nations back. Hell the 'cheapest' war would be a nuclear attack with no prior fighting. The only 'cost' is the missiles themselves, none of your other arsenal was even deployed. And the result would be devastating, for both sides in case the enemy has nukes too. So idk why u say the money spent on war matters. It just sounds like an excuse thrown out to dismiss the fact that the MAD doctrine has already failed before.
1
@rb8049 You could say the same for a 3D printed gun, or an IED. Yet those are still restricted aplenty, even though a determined person can still find both if they want. Nuke safety is more about not being able to get the requisite parts and materials tho.
1
@rocketman1058 The west got its own German scientists so that point is moot. In fact they got way more of them.
1
@jimjackson4256 Probably cos he didn't know when his dad was gonna come back out.
1
@angeluscorpius Perhaps I misunderstood. I was referring to the idea of states recognizing and drafting different rules and quotas for different ethnic (or religious or racial or whatever) groups, which is what Singapore's ethnic integration policy does. It seemed as if you were suggesting that states should always be neutral / blind to such things, which would be totally unrealistic in many many places. Contrary to the concept, nations often don't achieve parity by treating everyone the same, indeed it often just exacerbates the differences between the groups. Left to their own devices, people usually tend to concentrate, not integrate or assimilate. Which also eventually affects the politics. I was stressing that an active hand is needed. How said hand should be used is another question, varying based on local context
1
Safety specs sure. They're not gonna sell through tariffs if they're high enough to make it unprofitable tho.
1
@jimurrata6785 Why not just export the Bolt to other markets where it can sell better?
1
@John_Smith_86 Well they were better than King Leopold of Belgium anyway. That's not saying much, considering under him half the population of the Congo, which was a tenth of all of Africa at the time, unalived in as little as 20 years. That was so bad even other colonial powers were aghast at it. So yeah, there were some worse colonial regimes I guess...
1
The reason it exploded was because everyone thought it might do what they feared - replace human workers entirely. Now that really is a MASSIVE use case and market. That was the goal, it was never meant to be a mere personal assistant. The reason the bubble is deflating now is cos it isn't yet living up to that expectation. But if it ever does, it won't be a fad. That really will be the biggest thing to ever hit the 21st century. They're just struggling to make it happen.
1
The reason it exploded was because everyone thought it might do what they feared - replace humans entirely. Now that really is a MASSIVE use case and market. That was the goal, it was never meant to be a mere personal assistant. The reason the bubble is deflating now is cos it isn't yet living up to that expectation. But if it ever does, it won't be a fad anymore. Far from it..
1
American ship building exports comprises just 1.66% of the market anyway. They're at the same level as the Cayman Islands lol.
1
@dex6316 "the point is that if you raise them properly they will support you" - If only the world was this neat and tidy, but it isn't. It is perfectly possible, and does happen, to have shitty kids despite having been a decent parent. Not all terrible people have tragic pasts you know. And if you were a terrible parent, the law already has clauses to exempt your kids from caring for you.
1
@robertoformi545 Also less jobs for humans. Yay?!...
1
@nescius2 I have literally zero idea what you're getting at wrt equality, since I said nothing on that. But if you're gonna give me that nice sweet universal basic income from taxing all the AIs, I'm all for it. But I'm not seeing it atm, just companies automating all they can to boost profits. What initiatives there are are hardly transformative. And don't bother with the Luddite tale, it's overdone. The economists who keep bringing up that story also can't come up with where the new jobs are supposed to be from beyond some huge expansion in healthcare. The primary sector IS depopulated, so is the secondary sector and now it looks like the tertiary sector is gonna be next. Last I checked that's all three sectors that they divide the economy into, so where're we to go next?
1
@andersjjensen Any suggestions for these seriously questionable things I should try? Asking for a friend! 🙃
1
@andersjjensen Thanks! He was actually rather wondering how fast it would dissolve meat though. Like of similar consistency to a humans. Also how one would dispose of the solution afterwards. He's a bit fastidious about not being messy. 😇
1
@queueeeee9000 That's why I said 'kinda'.
1
@queueeeee9000 It is. Wells are long tubes that hold water, just as I said. Sure they draw their water from the water table, but the design is similar.
1
@queueeeee9000 Shape is also a thing they have in common. With the design I mentioned I mean.
1
@justinokraski3796 Why is that a problem?
1
Asia as a whole really need to shift away from rice. It's just far too water intensive for any of them.
1
@thechosenone1533 This is a private venture, it absolutely needs to make profits.
1