That’s pure nonsense. There is only one version of international law and the UN is the only globally recognized organization to enforce it. These other organization are just unilateral tools of specific countries representing their interests. And sanctions such as the ones the west does against their adversaries are unilateral actions by these states.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
- 4.41K Posts
- 4.6K Comments
Joined 6 years ago
Cake day: January 18th, 2020
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Yes, Bessent was just bragging about this in Davos. These aren’t international sanctions, they’re not approved by the UN. These are unilateral sanctions by the Burger Reich and their vassals used as a form of siege warfare against Iran.
just go back to doing your trolling on reddit where there are people dumb enough to listen to you
the fed instances see each other 🤣
the fed world has spoken 🤣
I can recommend PhotoGIMP which makes GIMP UI fairly close to Ps.
What’s the difference between Fb groups and a Matrix room, I don’t use Fb so have no idea what makes groups special.
3·4 days agoIt would be nice if they made their stuff more open source friendly, like publishing specs alone would go a long way.
13·5 days agoThe level of investment in AI in China is a fraction of that in the US, and they’re already starting to make money. The whole dynamic in China is different. Instead of chasing unicorns and promising stuff like AGI, companies in China are treating AI as shared infrastructure that you actually build useful stuff on top of. Hence why models are being released as open source, they’re not seen as the key source of revenue. It’s closer to what we see with Linux based infrastructure where companies build services like AWS on top of Linux. China also has far more application for AI in stuff like robotics, manufacturing, and other types of automation. There are simply more niches to apply this tech in than there are in the west that’s largely deindustrialized now.
Can you tell me what sources you two are asking for? My argument is that economies of scale make new technologies cheaper over time because industrial processes become refined, people learn better and cheaper ways to produce things, and scaling up production brings the cost down. What are you asking me to source here specifically?
Are you seriously asking for sources for things that HAVE NOT BEEN DONE YET, that’s what you’re asking for here? 🤡
52·5 days agoThe point is pretty clear, the EU is not a genuine democracy in any meaningful sense, It’s a neoliberal project run by the most corrupt people imaginable.
I love how you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. Your whole argument is that we need some amazing breakthrough to make other materials viable, but the reality is that it’s just a matter of investment over time. That’s it. China is investing into development of new substrates at state level, and that’s effectively unlimited funding. The capitalist economic arguments don’t apply here. If you think they won’t be able to figure this out then prepare to be very surprised in the near future.
Oh right, the famous laws of physics that apparently decree silicon must forever be the cheapest material. Let me check my physics textbook real quick. Yep, still says nothing about global supply chains and sixty years of trillion-dollar investment being a fundamental force of nature.
Silicon is cheap because we made it cheap. We built the entire modern world around it. We constructed factories so complex and expensive they become national infrastructure projects. We perfected processes over many decades. That’s not physics, that’s just industrial inertia on a planetary scale.
To claim nothing else could ever compete requires ignoring how technological progress actually works. Remember when aluminum was a precious metal for royalty? Then we figured out how to produce it at scale and now we make soda cans out of it. Solar panels, lithium batteries, and fiber optics were all once exotic and prohibitively expensive until they weren’t.
As you yourself pointed out, germanium was literally the first transistor material. We moved to silicon because its oxide was more convenient for the fabrication tricks we were developing at the time, not because of some cosmic price tag. If we had poured the same obsessive investment into germanium or gallium arsenide, we’d be having this same smug conversation about them instead.
Similarly, graphene isn’t too expensive because physics. It’s too expensive because we’re still learning how to make it in bulk with high quality. Give it a fraction of the focus and funding that silicon has enjoyed and watch the cost curve do the same dramatic dive. The inherent cost argument always melts away when the manufacturing muscle shows up.
The only real law at play here is the law of economies of scale. Silicon doesn’t have a magical property that makes it uniquely cheap. It just has a sixty-year head start in the world’s most aggressive scaling campaign. If and when we decide to get serious about another material, your physical laws will look a lot more like a temporary price tag.
Proof and sources for what specifically?
good point