I've noticed that "18 months" is a very popular prediction target, across a wide variety of prognosticators. Close enough to seem urgent, and if what they predict comes to pass anytime in the next few years, they can claim "See, I was right, just a little off on the timing because <excuse>". If it doesn't happen, most everyone will have forgotten their prediction. And in the unlikely event they get called out, they have over a year of random events to find a plausible fall guy for their failure.
That's the spirit of the age here in America, no? When so many of our leading public figures are hyper-wealthy individuals who are where they're via various sorts of shuffling costs onto others and pocketing profits, is it any surprise when the public seeks to do the same?
It's ultimately utterly destructive, of course. Wish I had a good solution.
And once it has indisputably happened, and the destructive consequences are impossible to ignore, the same people and institutions who spent decades complaining about "could" and "might" will immediately pivot to "there was nothing we could have done".
For example, the highwayman, who who provides the valuable service of 'not getting murdered' to travelers, in return for the payment they voluntarily make.
Or perhaps you would prefer the example of the extortionist, who provides insurance against the risk of "something" happening to the nice business you have?
"You kill a whale, you'll get the greens, you'll get Greenpeace, you'll get Commander Cousteau on your back! But decimate a school of sardines, I like to tell you that you will be helped to can them!"
Loads of fraudsters get off on technicalities or are being pardoned by this President. What started as a joke on Reddit appears to be taken seriously by way too many people.
>I honestly can't think of a worse name for a company that provides intel for strategic decision making.
Yet the choice is very effective at telling those with eyes to see that the one who chose the name possesses only a surface-level understanding of what appears to be his favorite piece of literature.
Or he's broadcasting his intention to destroy world governments and institute a new global order under technocratic control. He's banking on a US General not understanding the deeper lore behind of the name.
Well if the stories where realistic the shire would overproduce people in 3 generation and then export miserable mercenaries ala afghanistan for the rest of days.
It supports his point that they're planning to massively overbuild compute, which was already well supported by the financials. A lot of that planned compute buildout can be walked back though, and the technology is unquestionably useful in moderation, so it's not the catastrophe he suggests, and his hyperbole is part of what makes me dislike him even if there are elements of his foundational argument I agree with.
reply