Core Concepts – Martin Štěpán https://t.co/hKr4zLCDoW
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-19 06:16:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847522125516800000
Core Concepts – Martin Štěpán https://t.co/hKr4zLCDoW
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-19 06:16:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847522125516800000
Sigh… 😉
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O_WeFtRi6J0
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-19 02:17:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847462000928182746
Mostly I follow other think tanks, in particular Rand et al. I read their white papers and watch their videos. The thing about zeihan is that he says in fifteen minutes to an hour what they say in hours and hours. 😉 And while Peter does have a bias, it’s obvious. But he gets paid by the private sector. A lot of the other think tanks are paid by the public sector or those who are contractors for it. It’s often a bit harder to disentangle their biases.
Now, peter works from LIMITS (limits based reasoning). And over the long haul this is pretty much the best strategy. However, what he doesn’t use, because he can’t (often), is the political will of different polities to pay costs that western countries won’t and can’t pay – the primary problem with democracies at war, or under duress.
Once you grasp who pays him, the data he uses, the logical reasoning he uses, and the one weakness I see that is consistent (durability of political groups at the extremes), then he’s pretty easy to interpret and he’s relatively accurate – as accurate is possible when you’re predicting the future.
@PeterZeihan
Reply addressees: @partymember55
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-19 00:44:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847438565632069635
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847393757236204020
Humans were too cheap until the plague.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 20:22:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847372790959399055
Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847353151432905208
Correct answer. It’s how the Germans of the hansa solved the problem by free cities.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 20:22:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847372685921439931
Reply addressees: @RomanEagle6 @state_secession @EmeraldRobinson @TexasNatMov @FreeLouisiana64
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847355179680874719
As every need is satisfied the human desire for novelty generates new wants. There is no end to this process only increasing complexity of cooperation necessary to satisfy it.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 20:21:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847372482283786495
Reply addressees: @slenchy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847356012182872235
Secession is the means of blackmailing the feds to restore sovereignty to the states in matters not between the states.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 20:18:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847371595574317452
Reply addressees: @RomanEagle6 @state_secession @EmeraldRobinson @TexasNatMov @FreeLouisiana64
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847357465073164714
RT @state_secession: @RomanEagle6 @curtdoolittle @EmeraldRobinson @TexasNatMov @FreeLouisiana64 The Tenth Amendment is already written but…
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 20:16:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847371166392209755
– I have very strong doubts about NF in the first place – hard to believe it’s possible at human scales.
– technology is not a competitive advantage per se for two reasons:
a. Civs cannot wield it equally
b. It’s only and advantage until it can be imitated.
c. It’s generally easy…
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 18:51:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847349812125155788
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847337058177552769
(NLI)
Update: Volume 1, System of Measurement.
(Team: Thanks for the feedback so far.)
FYI:
1. The Grammars chapter can’t move. I tried moving the chapter on grammars forward so that it followed measurements, but it’s not possible without losing the reader. I need to stick with a step by step revealing the layers of the onion so to speak.
2. Five Hard Questions: I’ve added the five ‘hard questions’ to the beginning of reciprocity but now I have to write a bridge to explain the relation.
3. FInishing First Principles: I’ve collected all the references to first principles so Brad and I can work on them tomorrow and made a few early edits, and I can see how to complete the section without making it overwhelming – as if the whole section isn’t overwhelming already. 😉
4. Higher dimensions of Indexing: I’m currently integrating the higher orders of measurement into the chapter on measurement because it helps the reader understand the emergence of dimensions and multi-dimensionality. (which is why I wanted to move to the grammars, but without covering first principles first it’s too confusing.)
5. How to explain it. I”m thinking about how given point 4 I’m going to explain all that without causing heads to explode.
6. Hard problem: I’ve sent Brad my outlines of the explanation of how group strategies affect evolutionary consequences and in particular the production of trust. And, the non obvious differences between civilizational differences in decidability: western individualism as a means of producing commonsism but the consequences of it. The middle eastern priority of family and tribe. The Sinic priority of family and state as extended family. These trade offs lead us to understand that the ternary logic and the western trifunctional strategy are necessary rules (limits) that prevent evolutionary collapse at all levels.
Previous Frame: We cut the consequences from he book on the system of measurement. It was expedient in time, shortened the book, but does the book’s message further our objective if it’s just a system of measurement without its application to current conditions of crisis?
Does this coverage of civilizational consequence break the frame? But would this hard problem end that separation?
Why does this matter? The question is what are we trying to cover in this book? How will it anchor the public’s ‘first impression’ of our work? And what’s necessary to prevent that anchoring from increasing resistance rather than decreasing it?
My feeling is that if there is a short lag between books it’s probably ok. If there is a long lag it’s not. My opinion is that the system of measurement alone might not have the traction that the system and its application would.
But I”m not sure.
Thanks for advice if you have any.
@WerrellBradley
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-18 18:48:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1847349060614922240