MicroB

While it was said in the context of Europe increasing defence spend (and there is an analysis that suggests the gap between US and European real spend might not be as great as at first glance, onceyou take into account US non-NATO spend in the Pacific and the DoD effective 60% wastage rate (60% of what the DoD buys they lose), there is a big elephant in the room to why Europe needs to turn to the US. 5,580 of them. Only 3 countries in Western Europe can realistically possess nuclear weapons; the others individually have economies too small to sustain the enormous cost (the burden in the US is 10% of their defence budget). France has always maintained its own seperate nuclear capability, a decision that now looks prescient. The UK, following a decision in 1958, essentially handed its stockpile to the US, and in return, purchases warheads from the US stockpile, and rents the missiles themselves from the US. The missile launching equipment in the Vanguards is entirely US supplied. That might have been a pragmatic decision taken at the time, when the UK was losing pretty much all of its weapons testing sites. Post war, the US actively prevented Germany from becoming a nuclear power in several ways, First through occupation army orders, and then through the NPT. Indeed the whole reason the US pushed the non-proliferation treaty was to prevent West Germany from acquiring nuclear weapons. Technically, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands have access to around 60 free fall B61 (and other) weapons through the NATO sharing agreement (from US stockpiles, but hosted at national airbases). Canada also has access to some. Perhaps the US will like to donate these, and relieve itself of the maintenance burden. On the eve of WW2, the forces ranged against Germany collectively more than outweighed it, and there was already a degree of interoperability since so much was French. But the free nations were disunited in the face of Nazi aggression, preferring to believe the personal assurances obtained by negotiators at Munich, than tackling those 5th columnists in their own countries who wanted to cosy up to the Germans. In 1950, the US had more than enough people to take on North Korea all by itself, but was grateful for a coalition of united nation troops. In Vietnam, both South Korea and Australia let materiel support to the US. The UK provided more convert support. Yet North Vietnam was a tiny, poorly equipped country facing a superpower. In 1991, the US had enough power by itself to eject Iraq from Kuwait, but valued its allies, chiefly from Britain and France. The British are said to have performed a critical role, through RAF bombing runs, and through the Royal Tank Regiment support of lightly armed US Marines. Multinational patrols in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere have supported the US in maintaining the freedom of trade against a decrepit Iranian navy who had little more than speedboats. When America requested the support from NATO members to support their war against some farmers on donkeys armed with SMLEsm and flipflops, they responded to that call. Of the Western nations, only one country has prosecuted a war in modern times with an adversary anywhere near peer, on their own, and that was Britain, and its war against Argentina over the Falklands. I don't recall the US arguing then that the Falklands weren;t a country. The US wars in Greneda and Panama really don't count. US Presidential Remarks, 25th May, 2017.

"Care in the Community" is a euphemism. It refers to when the UK government started closing psychiatric wards and hospitals, claiming people with mental illness could be better treated in the community, car in the community, than in hospital. Of course many were, and were already being treated in the community. But it lead to many more people who were a danger to themselves and others, being on the proverbial street. The film gave legitimacy and validation to many paranoias, as have some some subsequent real events shown. Its forgotten that the film, not long after, inspired a couple of deranged kids to live out a fantasy, that they were living in an imaginary world, donned some leather coats and went on a machine gun rampage at their school. The Cortical Labs PR has a whiff of Theronostics about it. Neuron-based computing is not that new, but its still quite conceptual Cortical Labs could have selected other animal models; they could have selected fly (drosophila) neurons for instance, if all they wanted to do is create a biological computer consisting of billions of on-off switches. But that didn't pay the bills. The main application of cultured human neuron cells, or an organoid, is in drug research, primarily toxicology testing, as an alternative to animal testing. But also such models can be used to study drug candidates, but even that is a huge way from progressing a drug molecule from neuron cell to patient. Virtually all drug candidates for Alzheimers have failed. There is no cure, but as expected, research is showing etiology to be complex, and eventually a treatment might be nothing to do with neurons. Human cells were picked because the major application is drug research. If I was selecting a cell line to build an actual computer for an industrial application, I wouldn't pick human cells, or even a mammal cell. Shark neurons are just as functional, but offer greater practical applcation due to the physiological conditions of the shark body (lower temperature, different osmality). I think this PR is just an investment raising wheeze in an era when suddenly there is huge amounts of VC cash sloshng around. Theronostics was a company that claimed to have a diagnostic tool that could perform complex clinical tests on capillary blood. Capillary blood is finger prick blood. The business case was for consumers to walk into a pharmacy, and get all their bloods done while they waiting, empowering their involvement in their own healthcare. It was a terrific concept, and Walgreens saw a huge opportunity to cut out the hospitals, and save people lots of money. The company also had this apparent genius from England who had designed a nifty machne that apparently could do it. Only the machine didn't work. It did have some interesting technologies in it, when I assessed it, but some fundemental flaws. The company carried out fake testing, by buying in actual lab equipment, to try and fool the investors. The inventor was under so much pressure to get this device to work he killed himself. Elizabeth Holmes was the PhD dropout CEO with the strange deep voice (which was put on), a sort of tech "sis". She's now doing 11 years for fraud.

Life imitating art. The film that fueled a 1000 conspiracies and weaponised Care-in-the-community.

The United States was just those 13 colonies. So California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida and all the bits in between were never American? The Declaration of Independance was just an in-joke, joshing with King George. GThey didn't expect to be taken seriously.

Besides your understanding of Probability being a bit shaky; 2 and 4 are basically the same; the Establishment is the proverbial Wall Street. But also you believe its twice as likely that the American President is seeking to destroy the US economy than it is to bow to the undefined forces that some would contend have controlled the USA for nearly 250 years. If these decisions are eminating purely from him (I don't think they are, more from people who have gotten his ear), its more likely based on his experience in property development and how he thinks that can be applied to international relations and the world economy, which suggests, charitably, naivity. He thinks he shares the same qualities as other world leaders, and that he believes he has gotten to where he is through merit, because America is a meritous society; you work hard, you succeed. He would think he worked hard in business, and succeeded. Similarly, he'd think he worked hard in politics, and succeeded through votes at the ballot box, because he had to work hard to get those votes (hence his innate scepticism that anyone he thinks couldn't work hard shouldn't be earning votes). Putin and Xi also worked hard to get where they are, but worked in a different way, through guile and manipulation, because their rise to the top is having a deep understanding of process, and therefore key pressure points. The American President likes the North Korean leader, because they are both their father's sons, left a legacy, and both with ungrateful siblings/family. I don't think the US President is sitting in his office with behind him a geological map of Ukraine, a printed out spreadsheey from the Commerce Department to his left, a Bible to his right and a copy of the Constitution in front of him. He's being manipulated by people who see either someone like minded or someone open to suggestion, or both. Much has been talked about "Project 2025" which on the one level seeks to reorganise government, reduce its reach etc. Nothing it is is new, if one recalls the Bonfire of the Quangos. On one level, it claims to want to return America to is original or true values; this is the nonsense bit, because straight away it's generating a Ivanhoe- version of American history based around stories like the Shepherd of the Hills. Its been done before. "Britain" as a nation is a relatively modern 19th Century concoction, based on largely fictious accounts of Boudicia, Henry V and so forth, necessary to forge what was actually a new nation. Himmler did the same with the German Volk; he invented the fantasy for Hitler of Teutonic Knights, Germania and Buxom serving wenches, necessary to get people around one idea. I don't think the people behind "Project 2025" are Nazis or fascists, even though they might fit some definitions. But there are obvious contradictions in their message; reduce the reach if the state (reduced departments, good), increase the reach of the state (state role in personal morality, mostly bad). The 20th Century was this big struggle between Capitalism and Communism. Capitalism was the broad church; within capitalism, you had the liberal democrats such as Thatcher and Reagan, the social democrats such Gandhi, Brandt. Mitterand, Sanders, rubbing shoulders with absolute Kings and military dictatorships, who all mostly believed in the system of commerce and how we act with one anther. Communism was a narrow church; there wasn't that much difference between Pol Pot and Brezhnev really. As Communism crumbled, then you saw people try for so-called third ways. India, with the non-aligned movement, which was deeply protectionist (India protected Indian jobs, but with the result crap cars), Iran, with political Islam, which actually was quite a sophisticated ideology. Capitalism drew inspiration from the nebulous "markets". Communism based its legitimacy on the equally nebulous "masses". Political Islam based itself on the nebulous word of God (which extended to commerce). Political islam, as a single movement, fell apart for the same reasons it did 1200 years ago; no one could agree what that word of the Sky Fairy was. Capitalism seemingly won the 20th century, with political Islam quickly heading into irrelevance (backward countries no one was interested in). The early 20th Century saw Capitalism start to crumble, with the 2008 Crash causing many people to seriously question how they wanting to live. For some that meant turning to past failed ideologies of socialism/communism, fascism/nazism. The Arab Spring saw governments that were largely part of the Capiitalist tent being overthrown, and being replaced by we-don't-know-what-as-long-as-its-different chaos. I think a second American Revolution is underway, with the purpose to upend everything you know about what America is. That will likely shock people opposed and supportive of whats happening. Some might call it Oligarchy, call it Technocracy. Technocracy isn't new; its another 3rd Way that believes Experts (the Technocrats) should be in charge of government; superficially that sounds attractive. Of course you want someone who knows what they are doing running a ministry, wouldn't you? The government can be trusted to run the country, because they are experts. A vote is not important, because the experts already know the direction to take, and voters aren't experts. Voters can vote for things that don't alter that direction. Eventually there is nothing worth voting for. By then, life is more like Benign Feudalism; we are happy for the life we lead, but have no say it it., because of the rule of the Trusted Experts, who must be expert because they are so successful in life. The Proponants might say that this change, dedemocratisation, is necessary, because in 50 years time its going to happen anyway; people won't be runnng a country anymore, but machines will. Interest rates, if they are at all relevant, won't be set by election-watching ministers or committees of bankers but by machine. Wars are waged by win-loss calculations. Medicines dispensed based on personalised genomics. This is either halcyon days where we all sit around all day counting butterflies, while our manservant Robot Jeeves brings us our perfect steak/ Pad Ka Prow Moo every day. Or its a nightmare of killer robots cruching mounds of human skulls.. The late James Lovelock's vision is the Novocene; AI, technology rules us, and tends to use like we tend the roses in a garden. We like roses in our gardens because they look and smell nice. The Earth is a biosphere; life on earth, including humans, have created a benign environment quite unlike the harshness of Mercury, Venus and Mars, where electronics struggle to maintain reliability. So AI will look after us because we are important to the survival of AI. And then people talk about the Matrix, and anther rabbit hole/ But this 3rd Way might be as doomed as the others, It places too much faith in the infallability of technology; the expectation that technology will get better and better. Technology only gets better when people maintain focus. People get bored, the products becomes stale, technology whithers ("good enough"). Capitalism fails because too much faith in the markets, which get upended by bad faith (human behaviour). Communism fails because of too much faith in the masses (alturism, it turns out the masses like genocide). Islamism fails because it turns out the word of God is <deleted> spouted by an illiterate drug dealer. Musk, if he's one of the architects or adherants to technocracy is autistic. So he gets bored quickly. He obsessed about electric cars, and transformed the car market. he's bored of electric cars (Teslas are a bit old hat now, haven't really progressed in 10 years). He brought Twitter to make it the App of Everything. It now has less users. He's bored of that. His current obsessions are pumping out kids, and in his Aspergers head that will mean growing babies in pods, because thats a technocrat's faith in technology. He will get bored of that. He wants to go to Mars. Pretty sure he won't go to Mars, and he will be bored of rockets blowing up on the launchpad. Revolutions need chaos. From chaos comes order, and that's the intent. Create chaos that you can pin the mistakes on the failings of a person (a fall guy who will be dead soon), and then introduce the technocratic solutions to unpick these mistakes. People will be fully on board with that. Come 2028, world trade will be in a mess, with hideously complicated tariff systems, and no one really happy. Americans won't be happy as they can no longer buy Scotch Whisky after the distillers pulled out of a non-profitable market in 2027. The Chinese are stuck with fake Burberry after the firm decided to stop selling Chinese made products in European markets. Australians miss Japanese cars, when all they can buy are cardboard Chinese pickups etc. Someone will propose a technological solution to balance supply and demand, so that everyone can buy Scotch whisky, Chinese Burberry and Japanese pickups., and we'd lap it up as prices come down, but in a good way (disinflation is normally a pretty bad sign in an economy). People will get sick of 5 years of Slavs swearing at each other over a table, fighting over bombed out industrial cesspools, home to only some cats and babooskhas, and will impose technological arbitration. Decisions imposed by assurance forces, who are sat in Switzerland controlling remote drones equipped with enforcement measures. But the reality is the world will be in a mess. Treasury App 1.0 needs an upgrade after a 10 year old in Lesotho, with HIV, hacked it, and caused Vanuatu, now underwater (because one decided to leave the electric taps on all night), to be the richest country on Earth, and makes President Barron Knauss a one legged woman, because computer said no. Technological arbitration fails after the 50,000 AI-enabed loitering drones with a 50 year battery life decide to broaden their definition of aussurance to a wider area because someone didn't realise there is a New York in Ukraine, but also one in, er, New York, and declares everything between New York City Ukraine and New York City USA to be in the DMZ and go on the rampage, making it the most impacting city twinning decision in history. Computer says No.

I think she is proposing extending NATO-like protection to Ukraine, rather than changing the terms of the treaty itself, which will never happen because that needs an Article 12 process, and I'm not sure if there is a unaminlous agreement requirement for such changes. Then there is Article 8, which governs what treaties members can enter into outside of NATO. For instance, the US signed in 2019 a mutual defence pact with Greece. You might think why would Greece and the US need this given there is NATO. It was do with the US having the ability to ship LNG into the Balkans to weaken Russian influence in the region, as well as clear strategic interests in the Bosphorus in lite of what was then a resurgent Russia. Part of the Great Game. If the US chooses to recognise the legal status of the occupied Donbas, they might claim a conflict with the UN Charter 9right of self determination etc). on the basis they would suddenly recognise referenda as being fair and legitimate. Meloni's political positions are significant; she is generally assumed to reflect the thinking of the US President, and is his effective representative in the EU Council of Ministers.

My father died of Alzheimer's; in the end, it affects your autonomic functions (you go into heart failure). Gene Hackman had a pacemaker. People with dementia are more likely to receive a pacemaker than those without dementia. https://www.alzinfo.org/articles/people-with-alzheimers-more-likely-to-get-pacemakers/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5839643/ In the month before his death, my father had a fall while in respite care. The cardiologist wanted to fit him with a pacemaker. For most of the family, the immediate instinct was yes, we must extend his life. My mother stopped that. She was right for so many reasons. 1, he probably wouldn't have survived the operation. 2, if he did, he probably wouldn't have left hospital, instead dying with tubes coming out of him, surrounded by beeping noises and the sounds of other people dying, dying due to some post-operative infection. While a surgeon was pushing for the surgery, the department head, speaking with my mother, agreed that a pacemaker would be of no benefit to my father. If my father didn't have family, they would have likely pushed through with the surgery, as he lacked capacity. So he went home. He never fully regained consciousness, but we talked, and I knew the end was nigh when he stopped squeezing my hand in acknowledgement I was there. He died in his own bed, he knew everyone to the end, and literally the last words he said was "bye bye", so my brother who came for the final visit with his children. I sat with him that night, and in the morning refitted his dentures before the undertakers turned up. That's not too bad an end. The thing about Alzheimers is the person isn't gone, just locked away. My father was an army captain and biochemist, and amateur military historian. He was a highly intelligent man, grown up in postwar East London, and self educated, having pursued a BA and MA in Arts and Humanities in retirement (thesis; the impact of Sir Alfred Keogh, RAMC, on the creation of the NHS as a result of the Boer War). That part of his life seemed to fade away in the latter months of his life, and he relied on anecdotes, probably partly imagined, about himself as a young boy, and it was always the same stories. He was trying to stay relevant, be part of the conversation. But with the right stimulus, he came back. For instance, he served in the Middle East in the early 80s, when he set up Bahrain's military laboratory service. Playing music from that era seemed to unlock something, because we could engage in conversation about the present, drawing upon his technical experience, ie, he could think in an abstract manner. But that being said, I don't expect a cure for dementia in my lifetime. One of the horrific side effects of a pacemaker in the body of the dementia patient is that it keeps the body alive long after the person has gone. In some cases, families have had to apply to the Court for the pacemaker to be turned off. I can't imagine the trauma people would be going through to reach that stage of desperation. Hackman's death wouldn't have been a good one. His caring wife was dead, but he had no idea. His dog was dead, but he had no idea. He would have been hungry but no idea why. And thirsty but unable to drink. He would have died in fear and in his own filth. A sad end to a worthwhile and valuable life. But death is the great leveller. There might be further fall out from this. His wife died from a hantavirus infection, and reportedly, there was open medication in the house, but its not clear what it was. Was she undergoing treatment, but wouldn't leave her husband, because there was no one she felt could take care of him. Was she self medicating what she was a bad cold, but because she was caring for a husband with "advanced Alzheimers", she wouldn't seek medical advice. Hackman would have passed as a relatively wealthy man, but even he didn't get the care we would all hope to get. In my living will, if there is dementia, no pacemaker, DNR. Sometimes my dad wouldn't recognise me, but we talked, and he'll remember, and apologise. My Grandfather probably had undiagnosed AD. He forgot he even had kids, let alone grandchildren. And he also had undergone cardiovascular surgery in the years before.

You need to consider what Article 5 states, and also the context of her announcement. This was said during the ReArm EU summit; Italy is opposed to using Cohesion Funds to buy weapons and is saying help can only be provided in the context of NATO it cannot be provided in the context of the EU. You also have to consider that she is strongly EU-skeptical, and likely views a move to allow the EU to spend 800 bn Europs on weapons strengthens the EU< but weakens NATO, which she thinks is a bad idea.

Obviously NATO Article 5 cannot be extended to Ukraine without Ukraine becoming a NATO member. So this would be some sort of defence pact. If the assumption is that the UK and France would be putting so-called boots on the ground, they could only do that with the support of other countries, such as logistics.o Notably no one has talked about UN blue helmets; that might come later. But there might be questions about the legality of lending support to Ukraine, without an accusation of waging war on Russia. This might not change Russia's mind, but it might be important in UN votes. It also might provide legal cover for European countries to provide support in the absence of a UN Security Council Resolutiion. Its important because the supplies will come from the private sector. Notably Meloni is described as a far right nationalist politician. What Article 5 says is "

The problem is there is an example where that theory isn't working; DRC. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is rich in Cobalt and other minerals. China dominates the mining licences in that country, but it hasn't brought about Pax Sinae. Arguably, as the mining licences have come up for renewal, the civil war has intensified. Any Russian renewed invasion of Ukraine will be well signposted due to the forces needed. There won't be thousands of American miners in country. I expect any US managers to scarper. The idea that the taxpayer will be expected to foot the blll to protect commericial interests I expect to receive short shrift. Its difficult to find a single example of an expropriated natural resource eliciting a military response by the licence holder.

Or, he could run for office, as an act of public service and accountability. Naturalised citizen can run for most offices.

Note, not private (or public) US companies. Weapons sales are ITAR controlled, and its likely the US will block sales on munitions to 3rd parties if they think they will end up in Ukraine. This will not help the balance of trade with Europe. Realistically, the US cannot expect Europeans to buy more LHD F250s, Suburbans, Cadillacs, Lincolns etc to make up for the Mercedes, BMWs and Range Rovers that US buyers seem to like. So where does trade go?

I don't regard him as a conservative politician. So its difficult for a Tory to find sympathy with most of his policies and positions, So far many of his policies I would not describe as conservative policies. I support his Vice President's support of fetal stem cell research. I support the President's reported support to allow the federal government to access citizens' medical records in order to better train artificial intelligence. I support the policy to empower aritificial intelligence in our everyday lives (the so-called Project Stargate), which should help reduce the wage bills of companies, and increase return to sharehlders. I think his policy to overrule local objections to installation of modular nuclear reactors is worthy of consideration. Obviously a President Harris would not be implementing a policy espoused by the present President. I suspect she would have done a stronger job to push the fetal stem cell research that Vance is heavily invested into. I think she would have done a better job in supporting the ICC to ensure war criminals like Vladimir Putin are brought to book. Conservatives believe in strong law and order, and the ICC was a conservative creation. Conservatives also believe in an independent judiciary, but neither candidate held that position. Because conservatives naturally support the rule of law, that's another reason why I do not regard the 47th President as a conservative. His record within the courts automatically disqualifies him from that position. As a self confessed middle of the road voter, which of the 47th President's policies do you dislike? And which positions of Candidate Harris did you support? Neither of them would be my President. But I don't vote for a President nor a Prime Minister. I lend my vote to a Member of Parliament.

Well its not the first ever second state visit. It might be the first second state visit in "modern" times. Queen Margrethe of Denmark was given a state visit to the UK both in 1974 and 2000. The other was King Olav of Norway, who came to Britain in 1963 and again in 1988.

How would you know if anyone on the forum is American or Non-American? We are all strangers on a forum, and we are all, 100%, proven liars. Pretty sure your first name isn't Luuk for instance. You might have misunderstood the debate. No one, literally no one, is trying to "out do" the American leader. Not even the Argentinian President.

Comfy armchair?

Ex-convict Peter Navarro now claiming drug cartels run Canada. This is lunacy.

Apologies, this link might get removed. https://x.com/TheFl0orIsLaVa/status/1897400479384264986

I'm conservative and Conservative. PhD, 20 years in national defence and law enforcement. What are you?

I never said he was. Why are you intent on causing an argument with purile childish spelling. Plus you have deliberately broken forum rules by using the name "Bob". No one called him Bob. He was kn own as Robert or Beau. Clearly, you are attempting to mock. Forum rules broken, as has been pointed, correctly, to me.

He volunteered to work for an oppressive regime that murdered its own people trying to cross the border. This is like trying to claim the Gestapo were ordinary coppers, and we should have given people like Klaus Barbie a break for merely doing their "job". He was a willing participant for a murderous regime which was one of the worst the 20th Century had ever seen. Putin's major role was to facilitate the supply of weapons, from Dresden, to the Red Army Faction, who went around murdering German lawmakers, attacking unarmed Americans, and groups such as the PFLP. How can you admire a man who supported terrorism and who was a vital cog in a criminal regime. Plenty of Soviet officers knew the true nature and paid with their lives.

Because the current Russian government has carried out acts using weapons of mass destruction on NATO territory, because the current Russian government paid the Taliban to kill American soldiers, because the Russian government sent Russian proxies to kill American soldiers at the Battle of Kasham in 2018, when 500 Russian troops, using meat grinder tactics lost tom a much smaller US force utilising combined arms. You might say the US should improve relations, but to suggest the US should have normal diplomatic relationships with a terrorist state that hates your country is crass. Russia routinely kidnaps American citizens, on trumped up charges. This is not a country you can have normal diplomatic relationships with, particularly if they have done nothing to warrant that. Having a diplomatic relationship with the United States is a privilege. Ask Iran, a country that the US regards, rightfully, as a terrorist state bent of the destruction of Israel and the US, who is now Russia's major arms supplier. Russia also provided materiel support to Hamas, first through being the major supplier of rocket systems used to attack Israel. There are claims, likely from IDF Intelligence (which I would believe over Moscow's denials) that Hamas coordinated the October 7th attacks with their Russian masters.

Though Robert Biden served in Iraq. Neither of the American President's adult sons have ever served their country. His youngest son holds dual Slovenian citizenship; its notabl that he declined ti renounce this citizenship when he came of age. While Slovenia abolished conscription, the government is currently reviewing that decision, given its current recruitment goals. American dual nationals are liable to overseas miitary service.

50,000 in Ukraine, means 150,000 committed; 50,000 on rest, 50,000 in training. If these are fighting troops, you can probably double or triple the overall commitment in terms of the logistics train. But we might see something like the 1991 Gulf War; the Iraqi Army was, on paper, a well equipped and combat experienced fighting force, largely using Soviet tactics, modified in light of the war with Iran (which itself was largely an American trained and equipped military). We might see the Russian Army essentially collapse in the face of a well organised NATO combined arms advance. In reality, the Iraq squaddies were conscripts, not exactly motivated to fight the Infidel. Middle ranking Iraqi amry officers were of reasonable quality, but constantly overruled by a politically appointed general staff, which is rather similar to how Putin has surrounded himself with Generals more valued for their loyality than soldiering.

He was a Colonel in the KGB engaged in suppressing anti-Communist groups in East Germany. Hardly an example of noble soldiering. He's trained as a lawyer.