Silly Americans, submarines are supposed to sink! This was clearly a successful test.

I see some contradictory statements here, perhaps you could clarify those for me.

You believe the Democrats to be unwilling to improve on social matters, be it both domestic and foreign, correct? They may state that they hold these beliefs, but you don't expect them to make a meaningful change, which is why you don't see a path to improvement under Harris. I hope I understood you correctly here.

At the same time however, you seem to believe that electing Trump will lead to a civil war. Who exactly do you expect to start said civil war here? It won't be Trump as he's already in power, and it won't be the Democrats either because they don't genuinely believe in liberty/democracy. If they won't even vote for it, how can you expect them to fight for it? I'd argue electing Trump reduces the chance of a civil war, even according to your own logic. And even if a group other than the Democrats were to take up arms, that group would certainly be smaller than a Trump-led government backed by the US army. Trump would win in that case, and any hopes of progress would be dashed completely.

Any side with a shot at winning a civil war would have to be either the Democrats or the Republicans. Since the Democrats wouldn't start a civil war (too spineless), the Republicans have to. And I'd posit to you that the only way they would do so is if Trump loses the election and contests it, riling up his base. We know that his base is radical enough for it (see Jan 6), and Trump is too much of a narcissist to refuse the chance. In this scenario, Biden/Harris would have to use the army to put down the insurrection, and the political momentum from that might give people a shot at improving things in the way you want. Arguably there's historical precedent for this, with Lincoln having the momentum to ban slavery during the civil war.

You also seem to, and I quote "believe in the American people". But that same people makes up the US army, makes up and and supports both political parties and also seems entirely complacent to keep voting for the same two sets of douchebags and not push for electoral reform in any meaningful way. In fact, you don't even seem to think that the Democrats could be pressured into change, not even on the matter of Palestine. Either the Democrats are unwilling to change a position in exchange for power, or said pressure isn't as big as you seem to think it is, and most Americans just don't care enough (which would also put a pretty big dent in the whole "civil war"-plan.

Frankly, it seems to me that the accelerationist civil war strategy makes more sense when you elect Harris. But I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing at all, since I can't think of any historical precedent where this has worked out.

That poll is about opinions on the US's role, and says nothing about Israel.

It's a poll about the US role in the ME w.r.t. Israel, the rest of the poll's questions were also about Israel, this was just the question that I figured best represents how people feel about Biden's handling of it so far.

The only reason I am considering voting for Trump in the fall (compared to the handful of reasons why I am considering Harris) is that four more years of chaos may finally destroy the American War Machine and the disaster that is American foreign policy.

Are you sure about that? Last time Trump was president we got Russia gearing up for an invasion of Ukraine and China posturing regarding an invasion of Taiwan as well. Neither of these conflicts have been or would be beneficial to humanity as a whole. It's destroyed the ecosystem in Ukraine for example.

And suppose Trump does turn isolationist instead of going to war with Iran like he's been trying to do. Do you think the resulting power vacuum will lead American voters to believe that going isolationist was beneficial? We saw the opposite in 2020 happen, where people wanted the US to return to the world stage by electing Biden.

Ideally, I want America to be a functional democracy that respects and promotes civil rights and liberties around the globe. [...] Maybe a civil war will cause us to reassert what we claim are our values, and I'll finally live in a country I can respect,

Have you considered that you might end up on the losing side? Republicans have always been war hawks. Them fully cementing their power through Trump could very well lead to an even more active US war machine. Trump won't be around forever, he's old and these days the target of assassination attempts.

Accelerationism has been tried in the past. It has never ended well. I urge you to really reflect on what it truly means if your envisioned scenario were to happen. I urge you to reflect on the many, many things that have to happen in order to end up somewhere better. And please, consider what happens if you're wrong about what electing Trump will lead to.

I live in a country that's been under the yolk of another whose population thought like you do, that maybe making things worse will make things better. It led to the worst environmental disaster we've ever known, caused the deaths of millions and led to the birth of the US war machine. The scars are still visible today.

I sympathize with you though. The US is in a shit place electorally speaking. Organizing for electoral reform is probably the best shot at fixing things, but that takes incredible time, effort and money to get through. I can see why that feels hopeless. But personally, I find it a more honorable cause. Endangering yourself and many others is in my opinion deeply irresponsible.

I couldn't find much, but this poll seems to suggest the majority supports the US position on Israel. It's surprisingly bipartisan.

Do you have another source maybe? This poll is from June, maybe you found something more recent?

Mostly the whole exploitation part, which often goes too far and can be very humiliating or outright dangerous for participants. Some scrapped videos supposedly amounted to torture. Then there's the rigged giveaways and the fact that the dude just unnerves a lot of people because he, as this post demonstrates, doesn't smile with his eyes.

There were also allegations that one of his colleagues was a sex offender but as far as I know everyone including the purported victim ended up denying it, so I don't know how much people care about that still.

The building you just linked was built by a cooperative association as well, many of whom now live in that building.

Yes, but "aggressively removed from their homeland in 1948" also means "was voted on and approved by the UN as a direct result of what happened to the Jewish people in the world wars, and the collapse of the Ottoman empire for supporting the axis in WW1."

You're pretending that Israels independence followed the book as outlined by the UN, but that's not entirely the case. They declared their independence earlier than was planned, and they tried to take control over more areas that the UN agreed upon. And then there's the matter where it's perhaps ethically dubious to let the UN divide the land with little regard to the people already living there, and them perhaps being wary (to put it lightly) of now being under the governance by a group of people who are supported by people who were part of zionist terrorist cells (the history of the Likud party is quite... colourful. I urge you to look it up in order to better understand why the Arab nations weren't so keen on Israel).

Their country tried to win a war, and failed. Why shouldn't there be consequences for that, like getting broken up and given in pieces to various more friendly groups.

Because the consequence is that Israel has treated these people as lesser than their own civilian population, leading to a lot of hardship and strife, even for those who didn't actively participate in the war. And revanchism is a powerful and dangerous force as well. It rarely ends well. And after the war Israel took more land in violation of the UN plans. Even today Israel builds settlements in areas that don't belong to them and which have been declared illegal by the UN.

Germany lost territory after the world wars too, but you don't see them shooting rockets at their neighbors to get it back.

After Germany lost land in WW1 they famously invented rockets that they then shot at their neighbours, whilst being led by a man with a funny moustache. Revanchism from WW1 drove a lot of Germans into the grubby hands of the Nazi party.

And after WW2 the Allies were not particularly keen on taking more land, specifically to avoid another war, instead opting for temporary occupational zones led mostly by Germans, and an effort was taken to sway the German population to the Allied side. There was land in the east that was swapped over to Poland, but this was also in part because the Soviets intended to keep former eastern Poland and wanted to move people to eastern Prussia, now owned by Poland. They also moved a lot of Germans away from that region.

I won't pretend I understand all the math and the notation they use, but the abstract/conclusions seem clear enough.

I'd argue what they're presenting here isn't the LLM actually "reasoning". I don't think the paper really claims that the AI does either.

The CoT process they describe here I think is somewhat analogous to a very advanced version of prompting an LLM something like "Answer like a subject matter expert" and finding it improves the quality of the answer.

They basically help break the problem into smaller steps and get the LLM to answer smaller questions based on those smaller steps. This likely also helps the AI because it was trained on these explained steps, or on smaller problems that it might string together.

I think it mostly helps to transform the prompt into something that is easier for an LLM to respond accurately to. And because each substep is less complex, the LLM has an easier time as well. But the mechanism to break down a problem is quite rigid and not something trainable.

It's super cool tech, don't get me wrong. But I wouldn't say the AI is really "reasoning" here. It's being prompted in a really clever way to increase the answer quality.

China/russia/middle east not allowing it, is not the same as not being available. Did you even check the coverage map before replying.

So can you use it or is it not available then? And yes, I checked that map, where else do you think I got the list from??

Astronomers complain about light bleed from ground cities as well. No one was telling them to shut down the cities.

People claim we should turn down city lights all the time! Under what rock have you been living? But for city light bleed, astronomers have an alternative solution, simply place the telescope somewhere not near the cities. And yes, whenever a city tends to grow near one of those telescopes astronomers do kick up a fuss about it.

If you fill LEO with thousands of sattelites, there's nothing astronomers can do about that.

Lol no just no... I dont know where you live but the majority of people in rural areas are not served, otherwise starlink would have never taken off and been sustainable.

I don't know where you live, Mars perhaps?

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:InternetPenetrationWorldMap.svg

Clearly shows most of the Earth has internet access. Or do you think the US has no rural areas? They're still above 90% somehow. Oh wait, I know, they must be using those mythical internet-via-sattelite services that existed well before Starlink did! I wonder where you'd find a mythical creature like the Viasat-1 for example.

Starlink took off because they promise higher speeds than some ISPs and most other sattelite companies do at lower cost, not because they're your only option. Starlink has 3 million customers, which makes them the size of a small ISP.

Again this myth you keep spouting that the majority of the world has access is bullshit

Except for the fact that the data backs me up.

planes exist but you need to walk because you live to far from the airport is some classist bullshit.

Continuing your analogy, you propose demolishing the local university because people are entitled to fly to Ibiza, or their local supermarket. Or something, it's not like it made much sense anyway.

You still completely failed to address the main point, that universal high-speed internet access is not critical for most of the world, certainly not for areas that have always managed perfectly fine without, and that filling up LEO is a disaster for astronomists that they don't have a workaround for. If you're not going to actually argue that point I think we're done here.

Yes, that was the joke. Clearly people didn't get it.

Photo is clearly mirrored

The blame needs to lie with the aggressors, which in this case is Iran.

This is a matter of perspective. If you were to ask Iran, they'd argue they're supporting Palestinian freedom fighters who Israel aggressively removed from their homeland in 1948, and has been treating with aggression ever since. Back then, there were zionist groups that were labelled as terrorists. Iran has no strategic reason to oppose Israel, they have ideological and historical reasons to do so. Stopping the train of thought at "they want to weaken Israel" is not good enough, you need to grab a history book and ask yourself why they want to weaken specifically Israel so much.

For us, it might seem that there is a conflict that started on october 7th. To them, the conflict never stopped since 48.