One extreme or the other, eh? It's not between fight now or give up, there is a whole spectrum in between, that takes things like opportunity and timing into account.
I think there's a term for that, when a person only represents the options as one of two extremes.
It's a little frightening that you think there's much chance it benefits anybody other than the fascists.
This isn't the pre-revolutionary era where a large amount of people would effectively take up arms and pose a credible threat.
They have the mechanisms of government, they have the militias, they have the backing of a significant chunk of the populace, they have the most businessmen, they have their own locked down media ecosystem, etc etc.
We can look to N Korea and Russia and see that a population can indeed be stabilized under modern totalitarian rule, it just took some practice for humanity to learn how to pull it off. And you want to roll the dice on this now, here?
edit to add a word
... how many quail eggs are needed to make a decent sized omelet anyway? A dozen?
Yeah, he's been pretty consistent with his position over the years.
What I've been wondering is what he offered Netanyahu to help secure the cease fire? Netanyahu wouldn't agree unless there was something in it for him. I doubt Trump simply threatened him, that wouldn't be very likely to work, since Trump withdrawing support from Israel would get him heavily attacked by his Evangelical base. So any threat would come across as pretty empty.
My best guess is he offered him US support for the full annexation of the West Bank.
If you're in a moving car, and you toss something small straight up into the air, does it come straight back down to your hand, or way behind it?
Old news, but still very cool.
Really minor side note. I don't think comparisons of Trump to Hitler really help that much, there's too many differences between the two men. What I think helps much more overall is comparisons of Trump to Benito Mussolini, who he much more closely aligns with, and who predated Hitler in the interwar period as a fascist dictator. The term fascist is originally an Italian word, even.
Mussolini comparisons capture Trump's smallness and bumbling nature while still highlighting his ability to do great harm much more accurately. Trump is an American Mussolini.
Finer point, but it's not measuring independent reasoning, afaik they're still fully incapable of that. This test is measuring esoteric knowledge, like hummingbird anatomy and the ability to translate ancient Palmyran writing.
Current LLMs should eventually be able to ace this sort of test, as their databases grow. They could still be incapable of independent reasoning, though.
A test for independent reasoning could be something like giving it all the evidence for a never-before-discussed criminal case and asking if the accused is innocent or guilty based off the evidence. This would require a large amount of context and understanding of human societies, and the ability to infer from that what the evidence represents. Would it understand that a sound alibi means the accused is likely innocent, would it actually understand the simple concept that a physical person cannot be in two different places simultaneously, unlike how a quantum particle can seem to be? A person understands this very intuitively, but an LLM does not yet comprehend what "location" even is, even if it can provide a perfect definition of the term from a dictionary and talk about it by repeating others' conversations.
Anyways, still an interesting project.
Pretty much summed it up.
Of course. But the principle remains that if your allies do not want to participate in your military action, they are not required to.
It's the people in charge of that country that make the decision of how they want to respond to your Article Five invocation, based on their own values and priorities. That freedom of choice is fundamental to NATO.
Do you think it plausible that actual white supremacist Neo Nazis might call other people Nazis, despite being fully aware that they are not, simply to further muddle the issue? A sort of, "I know you are, but what am I?" defense, that most of us master somewhere in early childhood?
Alright, that's fair.