Applies to surface ships, not submarines. Because that’s all thats possible. Sorry.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-05 01:46:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029373018049515883
Form: Reply
-
That’s Emotive Nonsense. 1) Sri Lanka’s navy responded to the ship’s distress ca
That’s Emotive Nonsense.
1) Sri Lanka’s navy responded to the ship’s distress call, finding oil slicks, life rafts, floating bodies, and debris (no intact ship remained). They rescued 32 survivors (some reports say around 30–32, including the ship’s commander and senior officers) and recovered 87 bodies, with about 60 still missing/unaccounted for.
2) It would be difficult if not impossible for a military submarine (especially one conducting a stealth torpedo attack like this) to look for or pick up survivors.
3) Modern attack submarines prioritize stealth, speed, and evasion after a strike—they are not designed or equipped like surface ships or dedicated rescue vessels for large-scale survivor recovery.
4) Stopping to surface or linger near the attack site would expose the sub to detection, counterattack, or other risks, especially in an active conflict zone.
5) The attack was described as sudden and devastating (torpedo explosion lifting the ship), likely leaving many crew trapped or killed instantly, with survivors scattered in the water. Rescue fell to nearby Sri Lankan navy ships and aircraft, who arrived after the sinking.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-05 01:40:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029371440227881151
-
This guy is a nutcase
This guy is a nutcase.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-05 01:28:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029368353106870745
-
You are relying on hindsight bias. At the time the USA was taking over from the
You are relying on hindsight bias. At the time the USA was taking over from the UK as the world financial sector. The problem you are correctly obsessing over is a postwar one in the states, and a pre-war one in europe.
You can’t blame people in the past for now knowing what we didn’t know until much – or for looking at the evidence of the moment (vast increase in state power in both europe and the USA because of the industrial revolution) and assuming the risk that you see was something of the past.
Their folly was permissiveness which was endemic in both conservative and progressive circles at the time. The industrial revolution had make a west full of foolish optimism.
We are in the opposite end of that cycle. We can see what the permissiveness and state power have led to.
It’s not our job to blame them in the past but to solve the problem now that it’s visible and we can solve it.
I work on the laws so that what you despise can’t happen again. The rest requires physical expulsion of people from the country for certain and possibly the revocation of the vote from women, or at least women without three or more children (who are the only women that vote rationally).
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-04 19:22:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2029276433185685778
-
I agree
I agree.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 23:54:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028982264449974648
-
I know. But you will never find a world of peoples more powerful than you is wil
I know. But you will never find a world of peoples more powerful than you is willing to sacrifice its ambitions on your behalf unless you have something to trade them. As such defense is your only viable option. The problem is a population must be able to defend itself against all forms of attack on their capital. And baiting into hazard is an attack that succeeds because people want to be baited into those hazards.
It’s not the hazarder’s responsibility – it’s the fool who is baited by it. So how do you prevent your people from taking the bait?
That’s the whole problem with defending against the abrahamic means of warfare.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 23:24:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028974744033476992
-
Why would you think I was speaking in reference to individuals rather than state
Why would you think I was speaking in reference to individuals rather than states? How did you make that leap?
The US is visibly sovereign by every measure, but if you mean are citizens sovereign, they are more so in the USA than elsewhere, but are they sovereign in the pure and complete sense – then no.
I know these subjects are emotionally loaded and conservatives are right to be emotionally activated, but I’m not (and Martin is not) a trivial thinker. It is better to ask questions when you object than to exhort accusations, because while I might lack sufficient clarity at times due to practical brevity, I’m not wrong very often – it’s more likely that your interpretation is.
My difference from martin is caused by my frequent conflation of multiple issues that I often falsely assume are obvious: the natural law, the natural law reforms necessary for the anglosphere, and the natural law reforms that would be helpful for any and all of mankind. In my mind I think this is obvious but it’s not.
So, as martin and I frequently state (and which I find extraordinary value) is that I”m cleary from an anglo naval background and hold that optimism (higher risk tolerance) because of it, while Martin is from a small continental background that holds pessimism (lower risk tolerance). In effect the natural law is the same, but each polity still needs to develop a strategy that suits its circumstances.
To some degree this applies to you. I’m at the latter end of a long life of relative success and prosperity despite treating occupations as a means of funding my avocation. You are perhaps not to fortunate in your life as I have been in mind. As such my risk tolerance is higher than yours. This means you are acting correctly ust as martin is acting correctly, and I am acting correctly because of my and my country’s risk tolerance.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 23:21:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028974034864750931
-
This isn’t really true. It’s not distributed. It’s concentrated. And it’s mostly
This isn’t really true. It’s not distributed. It’s concentrated. And it’s mostly concentrated in cities. And those cities are as problematic for the host population as urban centres have been for the host population throughout history.
Purges are relatively easy.
Historically they’re common.
Even in europe they’re more than common.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 21:44:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028949586740691049
-
One must be capable of honesty in the context of which he makes an expression. D
One must be capable of honesty in the context of which he makes an expression. Do you possess the same self awareness you demand of those others? I suggest more so but because the evidence has manifest before you. Yet if you tried to propose an alternative model, would you be any less blind to consequences over time than they were?
IN the sense that you are ‘conservative’: demanding evidence before tolerating variance in genetic, normative, informal, and formal capital – you are less likely to be wrong by pursuit of the false promise of utopian fantasies.
What are you trading for that risk abatement and how do you know what is worth trading and what not?
I suspect you would say that scale and agency increase risk tolerance and small scale and limited agency decrease risk tolerance.
As such, if expressed in those terms (practical) rather than ideological or moral, you would be correct. It’s your continued posturing as moral vs practical that I have a hard time with.
The jews were diasporic, the Anglos, Romans, and Greeks naval, the continentals and the russians landed martial, and each had a different strategy because each had different constraints.
The moral difference only comes in to play (as you say) when we are cooperating. Otherwise morality has nothing to do with it. I know you know this but it doesn’t stop you from arguing against yourself.
Blaming the strong and advantaged because one is week and disadvantaged when we are not bound by a desire or need of cooperation is begging for special pleading because one is weak.
It’s not an argument.
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 21:42:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028949205650423873
-
Peter, (all); I disagree with the optimism. (a) our primary constraints at prese
Peter, (all);
I disagree with the optimism.
(a) our primary constraints at present are the capacity to conduct tests that produce the information necessary for innovation.
(b) our secondary constraints are the limit of human permutability (modeling) because of irreducibility of chemical, biochemical, biological, systems.
(c) Our third constraint is the resistance of humans who have made investment and malinvestment in disciplines vs the population who has not or cannot.
d) Our primary disadvantage is that siloing produces all sorts of negative externalities because of the inability to identify patterns across disciplines.
e) Our primary advantage from AI is presently discovery of interstitial opportunity given the siloing of disciplines in order to ‘fit’ reasoning into a domain accessible to human cognition.
I know in my case I had to master all the disciplines of high dimensionality and high closure (language, logic, neuroscience, economics, law, comparative civilization,) before I saw the failings of mathematics in particular and programming less so, and formal logic more so as the result of low dimensionality low closure – meaning low reducibility.
So IQ: Not so much. Its value is limited to available information and the structure of that information. So AI? AI’s current advantage is associative breadth and depth despite it’s incapacity for innovative prediction other than by unregulated hallucination.
So AI’s will expand the interstitial (inter-discipline) knowledge by discovery and application of patterns.
But at some near point those discoveries will run out (be exhausted) for the same reason we have exhuasted the innovations of a century ago in physics most visibly, but in all sciences as well.
Unfortunately, the constructivist and performative revolutions only partly succeeded, and unfortunately ‘philosophy’ went sideways and dead ended by the sixties. And while he’s still skewed more than a little, at least Wolfram has identified reducibility as the problem that cannot be overcome.
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 21:34:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028947194750136645