Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Lex Clips" channel.

  1. 123
  2. 119
  3. 51
  4. 46
  5. 39
  6. 38
  7. 37
  8. 26
  9. 24
  10. 12
  11. 11
  12. 10
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 9
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 6
  26. 6
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 5
  30. 5
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134.  @obgaming101  Saying the EU is particularly free, is getting to be more and more of a joke these days. It's turning into a bureaucratic dictatorship too. No freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is ignored, religion is deprecated, your movements are tracked, you own less and less all the time, and what material wealth exists is controlled and distributed by a set of unaccountable elites according to their own agenda that you have no say in whatsoever. Freedom is great, but the EU doesn't offer that, really. Back in the day, I saw the difference between East and West Germany. I saw the Trabants, I saw the bombed-out churches, I ate the awful food. Trabants weren't quite as bad as electric cars, vegan food isn't quite as bad as what Erfurt and Dresden had to offer, but the new gods the EU would have you kneel and pay homage to are utterly contemptible. I hope the Ukrainians can somehow win their freedom. Real, Bill-of-Rights freedom, where the government admits that rights are inherent to individual people, and any government that does not respect that is illegitimate and can be turfed out of power, with a process in place to do that peacefully and regularly. Unless by some miracle they get a government that can cleverly play the Russians off of the EU in such a way that they can avoid the authoritarian tendencies of either side, though, I don't see that happening. Instead they've got Zelensky, who's willing to fight to the last Ukrainian as long as he's "winning the information war" (waged against US, by the way) on the cover of Vogue.
    1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155.  @firasbouhamdan9917  How would we know if Ukrainians weren't "eager to fight"? The available logistical facilities for handling grain exports are about 1/10th of what they would need to be, to clear the granaries for the next harvest. Your quote about "100 vessels" is meant to sound impressive I suppose, but it's so out of context as to be entirely meaningless. That's the whole problem here. Plausible story + scanty, overstated, or downright falsified evidence = hoax. You're fighting your "Information war" against US, and it's extraordinarily annoying. There are protests throughout Europe against energy shortages, and the governments of major countries are shifting and falling. Your characterization of "European support" is somewhat... one-sided. And this is just for the tail end of summer. When General Frost starts his advance, European protestors are likely to start setting fire to government buildings just to stay warm. In spite of a couple weeks' worth of back-and-forth, you haven't persuaded me that America shouldn't just hunker down behind Admiral Atlantic and Admiral Pacific, and leave the Europeans to their own damnation. Look, I'm not keen on anything that could be spun as "a defeat for Western arms", although we've done enough damage so far that anyone will be thinking twice about tangling with us (hooray deterrent!), so long as we can restock effectively. Stuffing the Baltics and Poland full of our ordinance is probably enough to persuade Putin not to advance any further. (Playing "Arsenal of Democracy" is fun, for the Eastern European countries that really are democracies.) BUT, Zelenskyy runs a corrupt oligarchy, a lot like Putin's corrupt oligarchy. Sure, Putin could stop the war by simply withdrawing, but then Zelenskyy could stop the war by ceding territories full of people who are no more interested in being Ukrainian than he is in being Russian. Personally, I'm more in favor of the outcome that gives various populations a chance to be part of the state they want to be part of, ends this new risk of nuclear war, stops Ukrainians (and Russians) from getting shot, keeps Europeans from freezing to death, keeps Africans from starving, and keeps Russia and China from getting any more strategically integrated. Honestly, if there was anyone competent at State, they'd be saying to Putin, "Vlad, you can see you're not going to get much of anywhere grinding your way West. How about you get the territories that want to be Russian and that warm-water port you all have wanted since forever as a consolation prize, and then you consider the advantages of a Russian sphere of influence in some brand-new countries like East Turkmenistan, Tibet, Manchuria, and Greater Mongolia? Being a Chinese puppet is no fun, and you'd be happy to have some friends once resource-hungry China reaches nuclear parity with resource-rich Russia..." But, State seems to be dazzled by the stylish "Information Warrior of Kyev", instead of doing their jobs.
    1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180.  @TheLouisisawesome  I don't think I've actually heard anything from the Russian side. I wouldn't trust that either, obviously. But, we're clearly being lied to by the Ukrainian side. I'm also starting to hear people hemming and hawing about how "every side commits atrocities in a war." Translating this from "information war" to English, that means that "Ukrainians are committing atrocities". This does not fill me with confidence that the Ukrainians are the "good guys". The only objective, rational position I can see here, is the only way to limit the loss of Ukrainian lives is to end the war. We've already sunk enough ships to demonstrate what would happen if China launched an invasion of Taiwan. (Also known as "Operation Fish Food", to honor the life ambitions of the brave Chinese soldiers and sailors who would take part). The economic sanctions we've put on Russia would be crippling to China. We've established deterrence in more than one way. At this point, (if the Ukrainian narrative is to be believed) we're risking weakening Russia to the point that they might not be able to resist Chinese aggression in their Far East. Russia, augmented by Russian-speakers in Crimea and DonBas, doesn't worry me very much strategically. All of Eastern Europe in flames, worries me more. Nuclear holocaust seems unlikely, but even a small probability of such a dire outcome has to figure in to our calculations, and that small chance grows with each passing day. What seems like the biggest probability coming out of a long war here, though, is the opening for resource-hungry China to conquer everything from Vladivostok to Yekaterinburg. THAT would spell strategic disaster for the West. China would become THE dominant power on the planet. That new power disparity would render any diplomatic pledge from the US entirely meaningless, and the result of any Eastern European border dispute, irrelevant.
    1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. OK, so here's traditional AI training: 1) Define success criteria, construct training dataset 2) Iterate the AI operating on the training data, evaluate against success criteria 3) Automatically adjust AI parameters based on whether the current iteration gives you more success than the last 4) Stop training when you've hit an optimum state This isn't an expert system, with a lot of "if this / then that" rules. The rules emerge from the evaluation of success or failure, and they are not explicit, but rather embedded (largely cryptically) in the multitude of parameters making up the AI. You can structure your training data and success criteria such that you have "exclusion zones" of various weights. The destruction of the AI could be 100x bad. Disobedience to a human command could be 10,000x bad. Harming a human being could be 1,000,000,000x bad (or an absolute fail). But this makes the structure of your training data and success criteria FAR more complicated than it needs to be for, say, an AI whose only task is determining "hotdog / not hotdog". The level of awareness necessary to know what a human is, what could harm a human, what a human command is, what the AI itself is, or what could harm the AI is, is an extremely complex thing to parameterize. Human beings ourselves have a hard time with ethical dilemmas, such as "Is it wrong to lie to a woman about whether she's attractive to someone she's attracted to, if it would hurt her feelings to think she wasn't?" Asimov looks into this, in his short story "Liar!"
    1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1