Sofie Channel

Sofie Channel

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1942 ✔️ ✔️ 95% ✖️ ✖️ ):

The Drone Question. Is America screwed by lack of industrial capacity?

The war in Ukraine is teaching us that explosive hunter-seeker drones, FPV piloted or autonomous, are shockingly overpowered. Flying panzerfausts are wrecking armor for fractional cents on the dollar, and flying grenades are blowing the legs off of boys who can do nothing in response but beg for their lives or kill themselves first. Artillery matters a great deal still, but these things are like hyper-precision artillery you can't hide from.

I see a lot of cope about jamming and birdshot and so on, but it feels like cope, not defensive solutions. Is there any merit to that? Some decisive counter that is not being deployed here or is holding back an even worse tide?

But the real matter seems to be this: ability to mass manufacture hunter-seeker munitions for mere hundreds of dollars a kill is going to be decisive in the next war. With AI targeting and swarming it's only going to get worse. The hunter seeker drone is the rifle of the 21st century, and makes our guns look like swords. If all you have is guns, you might as well be Tokugawa Japan.

But America doesn't manufacture cutting edge drones of the type that are being deployed in Ukraine. That's only China. The humble DJI FPV drone, strapped with a grenade, becomes a decisive weapon. An anon in another thread (>>1940. I thought this deserved its own thread) asks:

>Why is it that US made hardware is so bad and Ukraine is snapping up DJI drones?

One answer is that America's industrial capacity is severely decayed, at least 10x behind China. Meanwhile America is sabotaging European industrial capacity with this stupid war against European energy access. And how could this be turned around? American labor is on drugs and/or priced out by financial or ZIRP email jobs, and when money comes around to build something industrial, it is sabotaged by payoffs to too many cartels (unions, DEI, women, local vetocrats, NIMBYs, etc).

Someone put it well recently: fixing America's industrial problem would benefit American workers and middle class, but come at the expense of the financial and political elite. I fear that means it's going to take a lot more than some "American Dynamism" memes and investments to fix it (though that surely helps).

Seems to me that this Ukraine drone thing is our Admiral Perry moment. If we don't take it that way, we're going to have a worse one much later than we'd like. Tokugawa problems call for Meiji-Showa solutions. We need to speedrun our glorious restoration and go nuts modernizing America for national strength. How else can we interpret this situation?

The war in Ukraine i (hidden image) ✔️ ✔️ 95% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f0
said (7mo ago #1943 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1944 >>1947:

Agreed re: the social reception needed to industrialize, making wishful memes irrelevant. Also on the benefits such an effort would have on the mass of the population, which is currently treated as surplus.

However, the Russia-Ukraine war is a land invasion. To deliver drones across large ocean distances, you need drone carriers, and those are still expensive and relatively easy to shoot down.

So drones do not threaten the American heartland, and American inferiority in drones may give our government pause before engaging in further wars with near-peer adversaries. Without diminishing the importance of reindustrializing, a brief respite from world conquest while we get our house in order does not seem like an entirely bad thing.

Agreed re: the socia (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1944 ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1943
fair enough. Fortress North America is not threatened and we could use a good solid haircut in imperialist ambitions to help us realize the situation and smoke out the opportunistic foreigners. But the imperial retreat is going to be extremely destructive of everything good in the world. Better to fight, and figure out NOW how to get back on track so that when we have that crisis, we're ready to respond to it.

And it's not just drones vs heartland that is to fear, but general power and sovereignty in the world. Power these days is measured by ability to efficiently send manufactured goods downrange. Either in peacetime or war, this ability leads to victory and tribute extraction. Even if they can't send drones at us directly, their manufactured goods are just as bad in terms of taking away our autonomy and extracting concessions from us.

fair enough. Fortres (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f1
said (7mo ago #1945 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1946 >>1966:

Quadcopters use Internet of Things components. China has dominated both quadcopters and IoT since the early days. The chips tend to use older nodes and are fabbed in either Taiwan or mainland China. That, in turn, is just a part of consumer electronics manufacturing, which is dominated by East Asia. The US hasn't been a major player in consumer electronics manufacturing for decades now, so it's unlikely to ever become competitive in this space.

Three options:

1. Relearn the art of diplomacy

2. Destroy the FIRE economy and build a China-size industrial bloc

3. Find a reason to make a lot of stuff other than consumerism

Quadcopters use Inte (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1946 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1945
Well we're not doing great at diplomacy. Industrial revolution sounds necessary but I fear America has never done anything but surge the wave of European civilization. Now that the generating core is mostly gone though, can we get it back?

The bloc in question would be North America plus Europe. I think it would actually work. Not bad and not far, but how to fix the political problem?

Well we're not doing (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f4
said (7mo ago #1949 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1952:

>>1947
I don't think a hot civil war will solve that problem, anon. Most likely you will lose. Since 1924 at least it has been clear that the way to deal with domestic enemies is the legal and legitimate political process.

I don't think a hot (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f8
said (7mo ago #1956 ✔️ ✔️ 87% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1967:

>>1952
I have to agree with gramps tbh.

The tide is already turning. People are realizing China now wields great power over us. People realize that the destruction of our industry was treacherous. The industrial discipline required to rejuvenate our nation will root out many of our enemies, and the law will likely flip to our side through the logic of national security, as was also the case in the 1920s.

In many ways China's rise is a godsend for our people. We must foster a sense of awe, respect, alarm, and fear toward China's most positive features to the maximal extent possible. This is the only way to build the momentum required to redirect society away from suicide.

I think much of our nation's woes stem from the basic fact that unipolarity is deeply unnatural, and everyone feels this. We all want to help the underdog. We must assert that we are the underdogs now.

I have to agree with (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 87% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f0
said (7mo ago #1962 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1967 >>1970:

What world have you been living in? We’re coming up on a decade of the China fear, hate, and hype cycle. What has that produced?

1. Aggressive geopolitical flailing that has weakened Europe and the western bloc
2. Reactive protectionism, co-opted into corporate grift at the expense of the people
3. A bunch of hype and cope without any actual world-class industrial growth

America does not need more scapegoating, cope, or grift. When America is really ready to industrialize, we will know because we will see shame and repentance, a “Time of Troubles” or “Century of Humiliation” self-understanding. Not triumphalism, scapegoating, and lies.

What world have you (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2fc
said (7mo ago #1966 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1967:

>>1945
>Relearn the art of diplomacy
>Find a reason to make a lot of stuff other than consumerism

With regard to the East and West this would have to start with some long-termist philosophical understanding of the East in the West. As Antonius Tetrax put it in a tweet:

>Meaningful dialogue between eastern and western traditions presupposes a level of linguistic, if not philological, competence that's a rarity... 17th century Jesuits could at least quote Cicero and Epictetus and tell Zhu Xi from Chu Ci

(https://x.com/AntoniusTetrax/status/1804088585840124029)

Meiji-style solutions would involve an unprecedented examination of the East by the West but
this iteration of the Occident is just not interested in other cultures right now. So we're left with this fairly embarrassing discourse in the mainstream designed to grab eyeball time, and Sinologists or Orientalists at universities who don't really provide much intellectual guidance, though this situation was far better in the past and definitely could be rebooted with enough will.

America has limited say on what companies get to make stuff in Latin America, so stuff is getting made there with Chinese/other help. If America brought in expertise on how to make stuff, the hard part is, what's all the stuff for if not consumerism? Even China/East Asia generally doesn't have an answer to that, which is why the industrial fatigue is still happening there.

With regard to the E (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1967 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1969:

>>1962
I assume you mean to respond to >>1956. Good points, but the question is how to get there from here, without so much destructive reckoning.

>>1966
>Meiji-style solutions would involve an unprecedented examination of the East by the West but this iteration of the Occident is just not interested in other cultures right now. So we're left with this fairly embarrassing discourse in the mainstream designed to grab eyeball time, and Sinologists or Orientalists at universities who don't really provide much intellectual guidance, though this situation was far better in the past and definitely could be rebooted with enough will.

Well let's not just complain about it. You've just articulated our job. As the West's corps of philosophers, let's take an intense interest in what's been working in other cultures and especially the industrialized east, and what was good and represented an alternate path in "our" enemies over the past couple centuries. Let's study that stuff up close and take of it what it can give us. Let's become the class capable of neo-modernizing the west. No one else will, so we must. If we do so, they will come to us in gratitude and relief. Have faith in the power of simply doing the work.

My Chinese and Korean is non-existent and my German and Japanese is shit. But to start with, what books and authors are especially important to study if we are to understand the other in a deep way and chart an alternate path? What have you read so far, and what do you think would be worth a read?

I assume you mean to (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f8
said (7mo ago #1970 ✔️ ✔️ 89% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1974 >>1981:

>>1962
I think you are misinterpreting what I am suggesting.

The past 10 years is only the very beginning of what I am talking about, and you are right to paint it as boomer flailing. The boomers do not actually understand anything about China or its capabilities.

What I am suggesting is the same thing as you, an American Century of Humiliation.

Do you really think that the Meiji restoration or Deng's reforms were not achieved precisely due to a sense of inferiority? Of course they were.

The China hate must emphasize that we are weak. No civilization has ever achieved greatness without a great enemy. The more we focus on China's strengths, the more we will become like them.

We became weak because there was no one left to fight.

I think you are misi (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 89% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f8
said (7mo ago #1971 ✔️ ✔️ 88% ✖️ ✖️ ):

>this iteration of the Occident is just not interested in other cultures right now.

This is precisely right, because the West does not understand itself to be weak. Fear mongering around China is good, because it shatters Western hubris and drives people to learn about where and how China has succeeded.

This is precisely ri (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 88% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2fe
said (7mo ago #1974 ✔️ ✔️ 89% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1988:

>>1970
>an American Century of Humiliation.
I suggest that our century of humiliation began some time in the early-mid 20th century, and the faster we realize that the better. I understand that this perspective may yet be esoteric. But when the time comes, it will be understood.

>The China hate must emphasize that we are weak. No civilization has ever achieved greatness without a great enemy. The more we focus on China's strengths, the more we will become like them.
This is correct but we must focus on their actual strengths, and not the stupid things like eating kittens and COVID lockdowns. They are high IQ, reasonably homogenous, populous, have a government by engineers and strategists and leaders of men, they focus ruthlessly on industrial growth and political results above all other economic ideology, they believe in strength through prosperity for their own people, and they are deeply suspicious of financial abstraction away from the means of production.

We must hate weakness and above all our own weakness, and strive fanatically to overcome it:

>Always be the best, my boy, the bravest,
>and hold your head up high above the others.
>Never disgrace the generation of your fathers.

I suggest that our c (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 89% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x304
said (7mo ago #1981 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1982 >>1989:

>>1970
>an American Century of Humiliation

With the caveat that we should never blame anyone but ourselves for our own humiliation. This is an ideological problem that the current chinese regime will continue to have issues dealing with until some of their sacred cows can be killed. The world as a whole would be better if all of us (every color from red to blue) moved on from grievance ideology in general.

The fact is that the bureaucratization/stagnation had already been in progress for a long time in imperial China before western technology arrived on the chinese coast and kick-started the first Century of Chinese Capitalism with technology transfer/industrialization on the port cities. It was humiliating for imperial bureaucrats but living standards were improving for the rest of the people.

With the caveat that (hidden image) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1982 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1989:

>>1981
Yes this is important. We can't imitate Chinese victimology. We've had a century of foolishness, more than anything. No one could have done any of this to us without our own lack of will to thrive. Best to simply overcome it and move on. We may have to identify responsible parties and classes for the sake of fixing things, but mustn't think of ourselves as victims.

Yes this is importan (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1985 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1987:

>>1984
Instead of engaging to complain, just click the little X button to hide dumb posts. This will cause the algorithm to delete them and ban the poster if enough people hide them. (this guy is probably already banned)

Instead of engaging (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f8
said (7mo ago #1988 ✔️ ✔️ 88% ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1974
>They are high IQ, reasonably homogenous, populous, have a government by engineers and strategists and leaders of men, they focus ruthlessly on industrial growth and political results above all other economic ideology, they believe in strength through prosperity for their own people, and they are deeply suspicious of financial abstraction away from the means of production.

Precisely. Unfortunately, in our weak society, explaining in the abstract that this is strength is bound to be met with confusion or ridicule. Explaining this in terms of fear (our enemies have done this and they now wield great power) is a far more effective way to play with human psychology and generating serious engagement with attaining such aims for ourselves.

Precisely. Unfortuna (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 88% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x307
said (7mo ago #1989 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1990:

>>1981

>The world as a whole would be better if all of us (every color from red to blue) moved on from grievance ideology in general.

This is a nice idea, but people aren't moving on because playing up how they are the victim seems to work powerfully to coordinate their group to get them what they want. Grievance ideology in some form seems inherent anywhere you have two ethnic groups. How will it stop working? What can make it stop working? It seems like groups that don't play the victim in some sense just get beaten by groups that do. What has to change to make this no longer true? What's the path from A to B?

>>1982

>No one could have done any of this to us without our own lack of will to thrive.

This seems simplistic and aside from certain examples (e.g., opioid epidemic, maybe obesity) I don't see a lot of lack of will to thrive as being the cause of "any of this". It seems more the case that lots of "us" thought that what was being done was a good idea and a path to greater thriving, or had a different conception of "us" and what was good for "us". There was a lot of vigorous resistance to a lot of "this" but it was generally crushed successfully by people who didn't conceive of it being a matter of doing it to "us" but doing it to "them".

This is a nice idea, (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x308
said (7mo ago #1990 ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1993:

>>1989

To follow up on this, it seems like what's missing from a lot of the discussions here is a coherent idea of who "us" even is and thus what constitutes good, and to some extent that has been true in America for a very long time, maybe always. I would love to see sofiechan commenters address this particularly with respect to who they are mentally including when they talk about "we". It's understandably a delicate topic, but no discussion makes sense unless it is understood what the intended "us" is. When one tries to discuss "us" as "everyone in America", there is far too much room for confusion and obfuscation. It has been acknowledged elsewhere (e.g. #1938) that identity is a core part of determining what one's interests are, so what is the group that we are talking about when we say "we" here? Of course this can vary from thread to thread and comment to comment, but let's make it clearer.

To follow up on this (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #1993 ✔️ ✔️ 77% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2000:

>>1990
I use "we" somewhat vaguely and uncommunicatively to refer to anything from sofiechan posters, to our extended network in "the sphere", to the broader majority of Americans and Europeans that I think we have common civilizational interests with. You are right though that more precise and shared concepts of the ingroup are necessary. Maybe that's one of our jobs here on sofiechan.

I've occasionally gotten so frustrated with the fictional republic of "we" that I insist on only ever using "You" and "I", but actually we're going to want to construct a "we". Part of the point of sofiechan is to build a much more coherent and organized "we" using reputation and trust network algorithms. But that will only ever be a vanguard of a broader public I think.

(Quote-link posts by using >>, not #. Click on their post number to insert it into your reply with the right format. No it's not the most intuitive mechanism, but we're running a lean shop around here and it works for now)

I use "we" somewhat (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 77% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x30c
said (7mo ago #1996 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

> This is a nice idea, but people aren't moving on because playing up how they are the victim seems to work powerfully to coordinate their group to get them what they want. Grievance ideology in some form seems inherent anywhere you have two ethnic groups. How will it stop working? What can make it stop working? It seems like groups that don't play the victim in some sense just get beaten by groups that do. What has to change to make this no longer true?

Imagine a class of middle schoolers in a school 15 years ago, before restorative justice became prevalent. The school is staffed by softhearted teachers and managed by a risk-averse admin. A social hierarchy forms, and kids jostle for status. One student discovers a new strategy: make it look like his being bullied by other kid and run to the adults. Seeing its effectiveness, other kids follow suit, and soon half the class consists of teacher's pets and tattletales.

What has to change to avoid this outcome? While replacing teachers and the admin may seem like a solution, two fundamental assumptions prevents any real change:

1. the belief that schools exist solely for children, and that children inherently know what's best for their education. This assumption leads to the expectation that adults must intervene whenever students voice complaints, regardless of the validity or context of those complaints.

2. The second issue is the precarious position of school staff. Always one scandal away from being replaced, they lack the autonomy and security needed to implement long-term solutions. Instead, they're forced to react defensively to any situation that might reflect poorly on the school

Two potential alternatives each has it's own issues, but avoids this specific problem:

1. The bootcamp. Instructors position is secure, and there is general agreement that comfort of recruits isn't one of bootcamp priorities. In this environment complaining is the last resort, not first.

2. Teenage gang. Without any authority to resolve conflicts, any display of vulnerability is swiftly and harshly dealt with

Imagine a class of m (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2f8
said (7mo ago #2000 ✔️ ✔️ 88% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2001:

>>1993

Generally agree here.

When it comes to the original topic of this thread, states and citizenships are quite important and tangible. In this respect, I am using "we" to refer to American citizens and citizens of the Greater American Empire (GAE).

That being said, "we" often also applies to the elite vanguard that is the sofiechaner. The vitalist philosophy promoted by sofiechaners is also not exclusive to America+.

Probably the best way of breaking down the "we" is a kind of 4-way diagram that juxtaposes:

- Vitalistic GAE citizens (in-group)
- Degenerate GAEs (domestic enemies, disgusting)
- Vitalistic geopolitical rivals (respectable but dangerous)
- Degenerate geopolitical rivals (subhumans)

Generally agree here (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 88% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #2001 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2004:

>>2000
I disagree with your mapping of vitalistic/degenerate (a moral axis) onto friend/enemy (a political axis) domestically. I don't think they are all that correlated. The whole reason there's a real conflict is that the other side aren't that degenerate, they just use degeneracy against their enemies in ways that we tend to find objectionable (because bad for our interests). You can get domestic alignment between morality and politics, but that's a hard social engineering task that we mostly have not achieved on the axes we tend to care about.

Also, not to nitpick but "subhuman" (an evolutionary axis) also isn't appropriate to conflate with morality or politics.

I disagree with your (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x311
said (7mo ago #2004 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2006 >>2007:

>>2001 Who are the vitalist geopolitical rivals? China? Because techno-nerds are more pro-industry than in the West? China is so vitalistic that they build stairs for people to climb mountains and close hiking trails over the country so none gets hurt. That's hardcore BAP Vitalism.

Going to the general take on the threat, what's going on with the "drones" scare? VC guys want Uncle Sam to chip in so more investors will see drones as something safe?

The problem of the West is not that it is not "industrialized" or "cannot build things" the problem of the West is that it is socially and politically broken, the lack of industrialization is a consequence not the cause.

The West managed to mobilize its medical industry to make millions of vaccines in a few months, while China struggled with it for years. The moment the West needs drones to ensure eunuchs are trendy in China again, there will be drones.

Going to the general (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x312
said (7mo ago #2006 ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>2004

> The West managed to mobilize its medical industry to make millions of vaccines in a few months, while China struggled with it for years. The moment the West needs drones to ensure eunuchs are trendy in China again, there will be drones.

The entire West is still being outproduced by goddamned Russia in dumb armaments. The reason why is your brand of unearned triumphalism—'Russkies can't produce nuthin, cause they don't have democracy and human rights!', 'Chinese are non-vitalist techno-nerds, so we'll have more drones than them!' This is exactly why we're falling behind - empty slogans don't solve the problems, only mask them.

The West has much to be proud of, but bad-mouthing our enemies while everything we stand for slowly crumbles doesn't remind me of our glory days. It reeks of the late Soviet Union.

The entire West is s (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x311
said (7mo ago #2007 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2008:

>>2004

First, do not use words about democracy that I didn't say. The West is shit, politically and socially, but that doesn't make Russia and China "vitalist" rivals.

Russia is at war, and its economy is devoted to serving a war effort. The West is not at war. Some of you seem to want the West to be at war under the excuse of "we need to build things," but that's not the case right now. Thus, it makes sense that the West produces fewer arms than a country at war.

The war that the West must focus on is within its borders and what is coming through its borders, not with Russia.

First, do not use wo (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x313
said (7mo ago #2008 ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2009:

>>2007

> First, do not use words about democracy that I didn't say.

Forgive me if I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that you approve of democracy. I was merely pointing out that 'democracy' agitprop comes from the same place as the 'chinese techno-nerds' putdown

> The West is shit, politically and socially, but that doesn't make Russia and China "vitalist" rivals

I find this framing weird. Can country outcompete the rest without being "vitalist"? Or is being "vitalist" somehow guarantees the success?

My contention is that no ideology can assuredly produce better drones than chinese ones. At best, it might offer an unproven blueprint for reforming the society, which could potentially improve our drones as a byproduct. Therefore assertion 'being more vitalist leads to better drones' is wildly premature, if not false.

> The war that the West must focus on is within its borders and what is coming through its borders

On that we agree

Forgive me if I was (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x311
said (7mo ago #2009 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>2008

I think we are more in agreement than it seems.

Apologies if I didn't explain myself correctly, but I don't think that "vitalism" has anything to do with producing better drones. I negate the portrayal of China as a "vitalist rival" just because they have more industrial capacity. Those are issues that operate in different planes.

I think we are more (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x315
said (7mo ago #2011 ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️ ):

I think "vitalism" in this discussion is either an empty ideological label for "relatively strong" or it means something specific about philosophy of life. In the more specific meaning, "vitalism" could be the Nietzschean/Hellenist turn in the Germanic right wing in the late 19th and early 20th century with a resurgence now in the 21st century English internet right. You could generalize that philosophical tradition to be larger than that if you wanted, but that's the best way to pin it down right now. In that meaning, there are no vitalist states, and no major vitalist factions, in the world today.

If we just mean "relatively strong and therefore relatively healthier" let's use a term that doesn't confuse that with a currently underground current in philosophy.

I'm aware the author of the original vitalism comment probably didn't mean it as a definitive typology, but it's still an interesting discussion to have.

I think "vitalism" i (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 79% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x327
said (7mo ago #2034 ✔️ ✔️ 84% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2036:

I have an idea on how to help solve this question.

"A drone swarm in every home" - how do to that?

I'm trying to build a combat sport called "drone slaying" - imagine bull-fighting but replace the bull with drones. Right now, it's a man in the arena fighting 4 drones at the same time with a long spear.

I don't need to go into the details of the sport, beyond the fact that I think it can be used as a vehicle for consumers to have the excuse to buy drone swarms.

Samo has mentioned that the problem with nuclear energy is not the supply, but the demand. We actually don't consume enough electricity to justify building thousands of nuclear reactors. Hopefully bitcoin mining scales up and AI training/inference scales up to the point that the demand for electricity increases 10x.

I think that a sport that requires consumers to buy many drones swarms could serve as the demand mechanism to then the US be able to sell drones at a massive scale locally, since drone-racing and aerial photography doesn't require consumers to buy 40 drones.

I have an idea on ho (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 84% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #2036 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2042:

>>2034
Consumer demand isn't the problem. It's American supply. They're is plenty of consumer demand for drones in America and otherwise. The problem is America doesn't have a real industrial base anymore, so buying drones just amounts to just inviting Chinese munitions into your home.

Consumer demand isn' (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x327
said (7mo ago #2042 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2043 >>2051:

>>2036
"the capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with" - Lenin

Does it matter if we buy Chinese drones and run them on our software?

We need to build up American manufacturing (in the US and allied countries), so they can’t cut us off later on. But I can’t we start building up on drones buy buying them from them?

"the capitalists wil (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #2051 ✔️ ✔️ 92% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2054:

>>2042
Buying drones doesn't particularly help you build drones. Unless it's just a handful for reverse engineering and inspiration. I think if your drone sports were to be leveraged into something industrially useful, it would start by making drones do something new with new requirements for the drones. Then you have an excuse to do a lot of physical drone hacking and new designs. Then you can go from there to selling modified or scratch-built drones. Then you have something that can be industrially interesting.

So here's how drone-slaying should work: it takes place outside, in the woods. The "prey" is armed with whatever equipment they like including firearms, plus eye and face protection. They are mobile and can run, hide, etc. They have an objective like capturing a flag and returning somewhere else. The hunter seeker drone "predator" can be hacked and modified in whatever way to make it more effective. It has to carry a 200 gram dumb payload and physically "tag" the prey, as seen on liveleak. The prey can try to kill the drone, or just evade.

This will drive a lot of useful militaristic fun and skill building, and provide a forcing function for equipment innovation. That would be an interesting direction to take it in.

Buying drones doesn' (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 92% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x327
said (7mo ago #2054 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>2055:

>>2051
for what reasons today would americans buy 30+ drones (a year) ($30 per drone) and make them swarm? Most drone demand is for photography (2 drones) or drone racing (10 at most).

Maybe a drone-defense system for houses could also do the trick. But outside of preppers, I don't see a demand pull for americans to buy drone swarms.

for what reasons tod (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2ef
said (7mo ago #2055 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>2054
consumer demand is a complete red herring here. Consumers should not be buying drone swarms or even thinking about it. The question is whether hackers are building novel stuff and then getting into manufacturing, and then whether the manufacturing ecosystem is good enough to support scale-up to useful levels of production. What I proposed is an engineering competition between hackers. Engineering competitions produce strong engineers and innovative designs.

consumer demand is a (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

You must login to post.