fun88supply8: fun88supply (https://gnusocial.jp/fun88supply8) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
fun88supply8's status on Thursday, 26-Mar-2026 17:59:08 JST
fun88supply started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
fun88supdply9: fun88supply (https://gnusocial.jp/fun88supdply9) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
fun88supdply9's status on Thursday, 26-Mar-2026 17:49:09 JST
simsa03: Since Freud we talk about the three narcissistic wounds (I'd rather call them "insults"): • cosmological: Earth is not the centre of the universe • biological: Man arose from the animal realm • psychological: The majority of personality rests on subconscious factors beyond conscious control. There have been a lot of further "insults" suggested. I'd add to the list: • communicative: Communication cannot give Man the assurance that the agent he communicates with is as human as he is. A lot can be said to elaborate. Three points may suffice: 1) Response behaviour is not a sign of human-likeness; instead human-likeness is already presupposed and actualized (case by case) when the agent the human interacts with displays a certain complexity of response behaviour. 2) The point is not that a machine is "intelligent" when a human observer cannot distinguish its responses from that given by another human being (Turing Test). The point is that we cannot but project animateness and rationality onto all that gives a sufficiently complex response behaviour 3) That furthermore means: If we cannot but presuppose humanness when attributing intelligibility into response behaviour, then we cannot be sure that in self-ascription we can know that we are human instead of being a machine. (We may be machines that feel like being humans.) I think that this "fourth narcissistic insult" has major consequences, and people already sense them, which is why they feel uncomfortable (even terrified) as well as fascinated when it comes to #AI and LLMs. (Soon) people cannot tell the difference between machines and Man. At they same time they feel strangely Promethean, with the sting of having created a golem (Mary Shelley). But not the issue of his creation that stands up and rebels against its creator is the issue, but that he himself becomes indistinguishable from the tool he created. It is the disillusionment in the ability and peculiarity of Man that is the insult. That it takes so little to make Man, in brief: The Banality of Man.
simsa03's status on Thursday, 26-Mar-2026 10:14:27 JST
Since Freud we talk about the three narcissistic wounds (I'd rather call them "insults"): • cosmological: Earth is not the centre of the universe • biological: Man arose from the animal realm • psychological: The majority of personality rests on subconscious factors beyond conscious control. There have been a lot of further "insults" suggested. I'd add to the list: • communicative: Communication cannot give Man the assurance that the agent he communicates with is as human as he is. A lot can be said to elaborate. Three points may suffice: 1) Response behaviour is not a sign of human-likeness; instead human-likeness is already presupposed and actualized (case by case) when the agent the human interacts with displays a certain complexity of response behaviour. 2) The point is not that a machine is "intelligent" when a human observer cannot distinguish its responses from that given by another human being (Turing Test). The point is that we cannot but project animateness and rationality onto all that gives a sufficiently complex response behaviour 3) That furthermore means: If we cannot but presuppose humanness when attributing intelligibility into response behaviour, then we cannot be sure that in self-ascription we can know that we are human instead of being a machine. (We may be machines that feel like being humans.) I think that this "fourth narcissistic insult" has major consequences, and people already sense them, which is why they feel uncomfortable (even terrified) as well as fascinated when it comes to #AI and LLMs. (Soon) people cannot tell the difference between machines and Man. At they same time they feel strangely Promethean, with the sting of having created a golem (Mary Shelley). But not the issue of his creation that stands up and rebels against its creator is the issue, but that he himself becomes indistinguishable from the tool he created. It is the disillusionment in the ability and peculiarity of Man that is the insult. That it takes so little to make Man, in brief: The Banality of Man.
simsa03: Since Freud we talk about the three narcissistic wounds (I'd rather call them "insults"): • cosmological: Earth is not the centre of the universe • biological: Man arose from the animal realm • psychological: The majority of personality rests on subconscious factors beyond conscious control. There have been a lot of further "insults" suggested. I'd add to the list: • communicative: Communication cannot give Man the assurance that the agent he communicates with is as human as he is. A lot can be said to elaborate. Three points may suffice: 1) Response behaviour is not a sign of human-likeness; instead human-likeness is already presupposed and actualized (case by case) when the agent the human interacts with displays a certain complexity of response behaviour. 2) The point is not that a machine is "intelligent" when a human observer cannot distinguish its responses from that given by another human being (Turing Test). The point is that we cannot but project animateness and rationality onto all that gives a sufficiently complex response behaviour 3) That furthermore means: If we cannot but presuppose humanness when attributing intelligibility into response behaviour, then we cannot be sure that in *self-ascription* we can know that we are human instead of being a machine. (We may be machines that feel like being humans.) I think that this "fourth narcissistic insult" has major consequences, and people already sense them, which is why they feel uncomfortable (even terrified) as well as fascinated when it comes to #AI and LLMs. (Soon) people cannot tell the difference between machines and Man. At they same time they feel strangely Promethean, with the sting of having created a golem (Mary Shelley). But not the issue of his creation that stands up and rebels against its creator is the issue, but that he himself becomes indistinguishable from the *tool* he created. It is the disillusionment in the ability and peculiarity of Man that is the insult. That it takes so little to make Man, in brief: The Banality of Man.
simsa03's status on Thursday, 26-Mar-2026 09:48:20 JST
simsa03: Ashleigh Fields, "Iran threatens key Red Sea strait if US launches ground operation" https://thehill.com/policy/interna tional/5800545-iran-threatens-red-sea-strait/ Told you so. > https://gnusocial.jp/notice/12319588
simsa03's status on Thursday, 26-Mar-2026 04:22:44 JST
Ashleigh Fields, "Iran threatens key Red Sea strait if US launches ground operation" https://thehill.com/policy/interna tional/5800545-iran-threatens-red-sea-strait/ Told you so. > https://gnusocial.jp/notice/12319588
simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Friday, 20-Mar-2026 11:54:39 JST - GNU social JP
simsa03: i24NEWS staff, "Washington sends Tehran 15-point plan with demands to end Middle East war" https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-washington-proposes-15-point-plan-to-tehran-to-end-middle-east-war-report Interesting proposals.
simsa03's status on Wednesday, 25-Mar-2026 07:51:15 JST
i24NEWS staff, "Washington sends Tehran 15-point plan with demands to end Middle East war" https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-washington-proposes-15-point-plan-to-tehran-to-end-middle-east-war-report Interesting proposals.
Washington proposes 15-point plan to Tehran to end Middle East war - report - i24NEWS
simsa03: I read this piece https://hachyderm.io/@EmilyEnough/116258821633964028 and couldn't help but laugh. A coder who feels uncomfortable when confronted with the ambiguities and susceptibility to errors of AIs and LLMs. Seriously? • LLMs are a disaster for the environment and a machine of plagiarism. Well, that's why the techbros want nuclear power—to generate the amount of electricity necessary without polluting the environment (remember climate change, anybody?). And a giant plagiarism machine? Only in part, as the class acts of writers (Bartz v. Anthropic already successful) and others https://www.authorsalliance.org/2026/01/27/ai-class-action-litigation-update-books-where-things-stand-in-early-2026/ as well as class acts against music plagiarism https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/us-music-publishers-suing-anthropic-make-their-case-against-ai-fair-use-2026-03-24/ show. • With LLMs a supposedly literal communication style of programming languages is replaced by conversations that talk "around the issue, but never directly address the substance of problem". This may be awful for literal-minded people but is a huge advantage for every layperson out there. My young nephew learns programming by using LLMs and try and error. What's not precise about that? It works or it doesn't. So perhaps it's less an alleged lack of precision but the inability to learn a new approach to programming that is the issue here? • LLMs create the illusion of conversation where there is none. Instead of intentionality of discourse, word concatenation driven by statistics simulate the appearance of conversation that has subject matter and goal. Oh my. As if human being would not speak exactly that way, that is by word concatenations via rules and statistics. But the problem is less that some programmers cannot cope with ambiguity and blame everybody else, it is more that they apparently don't understand the ways of human discourse. That, e.g., most of it is not goal-oriented; that most often there is no intent at all in natural conversations because chatter at farmers markets or in cafés and bars are not about settling disputes or reaching goals but to enter a flow in which the distinction between I and Thou disappears. Information, in these settings, is transmitted in parallel monologues that go past each other but are still somehow absorbed and returned to later when and if necessary. It's not the LLMs' fault that certain programmers don't understand human communication. • "There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output." Exactly. As there is none between human beings—at least none that could be proven to exist. Underneath such complaints does not lie an aversion to a lack of intent and precision but the fear that human beings may just be as statistical noise machines as are LLMs. Or more precisely: The real impact of the Turing Test is not to ascribe rationality (and perhaps consciousness) to a machine when the observer cannot distinguish its behaviour from that of a human being. The more interesting impact consists in that humans cannot but ascribe intentionality and rationality to *any* "agent" (sentient or not) given a certain complexity of response behaviour. (That's why we think cats, spiders, and motorcycles have a soul.) And that in turn means that when a human being cannot but project rationality (etc.) onto an agent without knowing whether the agent is rational or not, in self-ascription s/he cannot be certain that s/he himself/herself is a rational sentient being. I seriously contend that in reality it is this fear that drives a lot of programmers into such jeremiads about #LLM and #AI. • LLMs are another act of appropriation by the evil capitalists. Well, without these capitalists there wouldn't be such progamming languages or machines to program. Contrary to the allegation, programming languages historically stem from the infrastructure of signal communication and the theoretical work of algorithm theory, all sponsored and financed by evil capitalists. That the literate "proletarians" can tinker with machines and codes is because these things were brought about via governmentally and commercially subsidised R&D. It's really funny to see how some programmers can get things so utterly wrong. Do I have to suppose they are in fact LLMs?
simsa03's status on Wednesday, 25-Mar-2026 05:29:32 JST
I read this piece https://hachyderm.io/@EmilyEnough/116258821633964028 and couldn't help but laugh. A coder who feels uncomfortable when confronted with the ambiguities and susceptibility to errors of AIs and LLMs. Seriously? • LLMs are a disaster for the environment and a machine of plagiarism. Well, that's why the techbros want nuclear power—to generate the amount of electricity necessary without polluting the environment (remember climate change, anybody?). And a giant plagiarism machine? Only in part, as the class acts of writers (Bartz v. Anthropic already successful) and others https://www.authorsalliance.org/2026/01/27/ai-class-action-litigation-update-books-where-things-stand-in-early-2026/ as well as class acts against music plagiarism https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/us-music-publishers-suing-anthropic-make-their-case-against-ai-fair-use-2026-03-24/ show. • With LLMs a supposedly literal communication style of programming languages is replaced by conversations that talk "around the issue, but never directly address the substance of problem". This may be awful for literal-minded people but is a huge advantage for every layperson out there. My young nephew learns programming by using LLMs and try and error. What's not precise about that? It works or it doesn't. So perhaps it's less an alleged lack of precision but the inability to learn a new approach to programming that is the issue here? • LLMs create the illusion of conversation where there is none. Instead of intentionality of discourse, word concatenation driven by statistics simulate the appearance of conversation that has subject matter and goal. Oh my. As if human being would not speak exactly that way, that is by word concatenations via rules and statistics. But the problem is less that some programmers cannot cope with ambiguity and blame everybody else, it is more that they apparently don't understand the ways of human discourse. That, e.g., most of it is not goal-oriented; that most often there is no intent at all in natural conversations because chatter at farmers markets or in cafés and bars are not about settling disputes or reaching goals but to enter a flow in which the distinction between I and Thou disappears. Information, in these settings, is transmitted in parallel monologues that go past each other but are still somehow absorbed and returned to later when and if necessary. It's not the LLMs' fault that certain programmers don't understand human communication. • "There is no mind to model, and no predictability to the output." Exactly. As there is none between human beings—at least none that could be proven to exist. Underneath such complaints does not lie an aversion to a lack of intent and precision but the fear that human beings may just be as statistical noise machines as are LLMs. Or more precisely: The real impact of the Turing Test is not to ascribe rationality (and perhaps consciousness) to a machine when the observer cannot distinguish its behaviour from that of a human being. The more interesting impact consists in that humans cannot but ascribe intentionality and rationality to any "agent" (sentient or not) given a certain complexity of response behaviour. (That's why we think cats, spiders, and motorcycles have a soul.) And that in turn means that when a human being cannot but project rationality (etc.) onto an agent without knowing whether the agent is rational or not, in self-ascription s/he cannot be certain that s/he himself/herself is a rational sentient being. I seriously contend that in reality it is this fear that drives a lot of programmers into such jeremiads about #LLM and #AI. • LLMs are another act of appropriation by the evil capitalists. Well, without these capitalists there wouldn't be such progamming languages or machines to program. Contrary to the allegation, programming languages historically stem from the infrastructure of signal communication and the theoretical work of algorithm theory, all sponsored and financed by evil capitalists. That the literate "proletarians" can tinker with machines and codes is because these things were brought about via governmentally and commercially subsidised R&D. It's really funny to see how some programmers can get things so utterly wrong. Do I have to suppose they are in fact LLMs?
Emily 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ (@EmilyEnough@hachyderm.io)
AI Class Action Litigation Update (Books): Where things stand in early 2026
simsa03: Why should any reasonably advanced #AI come to the very idea that humans are not mere chatbots but sentient beings? Could any human pass a Turing Test 2.0 and convince an AI he is not an AI?
simsa03's status on Wednesday, 25-Mar-2026 01:41:17 JST
Why should any reasonably advanced #AI come to the very idea that humans are not mere chatbots but sentient beings? Could any human pass a Turing Test 2.0 and convince an AI he is not an AI?
sunwin1jpnet: Sunwin (https://gnusocial.jp/sunwin1jpnet) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
sunwin1jpnet's status on Wednesday, 25-Mar-2026 00:40:14 JST
Sunwin started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
sc88bio2: sc88bio2 (https://gnusocial.jp/sc88bio2) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
sc88bio2's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 17:31:56 JST
sc88bio2 started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
simsa03: The sadness that remains. The sadness accompanies you for life even when the violence has parted. But it can always return. And it will. Because humans are that way. And so the sadness stays, the knowledge that people will (re-)turn to violence, again and again, often because of cruelty and malice, often because of fatigue and hoplessness. The violence stays the same, only the triggers vary. #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 15:00:16 JST
The sadness that remains. The sadness accompanies you for life even when the violence has parted. But it can always return. And it will. Because humans are that way. And so the sadness stays, the knowledge that people will (re-)turn to violence, again and again, often because of cruelty and malice, often because of fatigue and hoplessness. The violence stays the same, only the triggers vary. talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03: I write personal things into the electric void not to brag but to pay attention. Other than the "Hearing Aid" of John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider" (1975) I don't expect anyone to listen. In fact, it is precisely the tension of "somebody could" and "nobody does" that gives these notes a specific touch of self-reassurance. Like being your own confessor in the confessional. #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 14:50:09 JST
I write personal things into the electric void not to brag but to pay attention. Other than the "Hearing Aid" of John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider" (1975) I don't expect anyone to listen. In fact, it is precisely the tension of "somebody could" and "nobody does" that gives these notes a specific touch of self-reassurance. Like being your own confessor in the confessional. talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03: I was raised with (or by) two mothers and three fathers. I experienced harsh violence—beatings with wooden spoons, clogs, bare hands. Forced to fetch food from the bin and eat it. As I wandered through the families, one constant remained: You are the reason we're in the mess we are. Not necessarily as a cause but most often as the trigger. To be made responsible for the divorce of your adoptive parents when you were twelve years old. To be called an accomplice to the adulteries of the third father while at the same time, as a teenager, you had been exposed to him by your adoptive mother. The main bafflement remains: How parents whine about their responsibilties and accuse the child of making their life so constricting. The bafflement that even as a five year old you're often far more the adult in the room than the adults that brought you into this world and who are supposed to be the responsible parents, caring for you. A trait that I find all around: That the child or the younger person is expected to act like the responsible adult simply because the adult, the parent, in their weak moment, again, act like abandoned children that have to be taken care of. And, as there is nobody around, they turn to their child. Turn on the child. Beat the crap out of it because it doesn't deliver. I see this trait particularly often in women (and in relationships), when they behave like the little girls who charm their daddies into this or that. Niceness as weaponry, mendacity as a legitimate way of acting. I don't trust relationships. Because I don't trust people not to deliberately fall back into their childhood pains and use these intentionally as weapon. ("Look how I suffer, so you need to give me a break, or otherwise you're just mean.") For the preservation of their self-image as well as for the achievement of their objectives. Perhaps it is this what this meandering is all about: The bafflement how adults so willingly use their childhood as a weapon. There is no compassion in it nor grace. #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 14:33:25 JST
I was raised with (or by) two mothers and three fathers. I experienced harsh violence—beatings with wooden spoons, clogs, bare hands. Forced to fetch food from the bin and eat it. As I wandered through the families, one constant remained: You are the reason we're in the mess we are. Not necessarily as a cause but most often as the trigger. To be made responsible for the divorce of your adoptive parents when you were twelve years old. To be called an accomplice to the adulteries of the third father while at the same time, as a teenager, you had been exposed to him by your adoptive mother. The main bafflement remains: How parents whine about their responsibilties and accuse the child of making their life so constricting. The bafflement that even as a five year old you're often far more the adult in the room than the adults that brought you into this world and who are supposed to be the responsible parents, caring for you. A trait that I find all around: That the child or the younger person is expected to act like the responsible adult simply because the adult, the parent, in their weak moment, again, act like abandoned children that have to be taken care of. And, as there is nobody around, they turn to their child. Turn on the child. Beat the crap out of it because it doesn't deliver. I see this trait particularly often in women (and in relationships), when they behave like the little girls who charm their daddies into this or that. Niceness as weaponry, mendacity as a legitimate way of acting. I don't trust relationships. Because I don't trust people not to deliberately fall back into their childhood pains and use these intentionally as weapon. ("Look how I suffer, so you need to give me a break, or otherwise you're just mean.") For the preservation of their self-image as well as for the achievement of their objectives. Perhaps it is this what this meandering is all about: The bafflement how adults so willingly use their childhood as a weapon. There is no compassion in it nor grace. talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03: Feeling to your core the anguish and sadness your nephew is in, and then get told by your sister that you're transferring. A form of gaslighting, common in families. Because it's not about reality, truth, or compassion but about authority and the need to assert it—even at the expense of the child. #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 14:16:53 JST
Feeling to your core the anguish and sadness your nephew is in, and then get told by your sister that you're transferring. A form of gaslighting, common in families. Because it's not about reality, truth, or compassion but about authority and the need to assert it—even at the expense of the child. talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
simsa03: Much of culture and human understanding of himself circles around or stems from an underlying understanding of wilderness as the "untamed" other. What people so awfully call "Anthropocene" is less that there are "no untouched areas" left but that the world apprently completely turned into a man-made or man-influenced "oikos". The absence of the wild makes itself felt by the sense of staleness this world of ours has acquired -- and why, then, should one care for such a boring and stale world? Thus what resulted from the vanishing of the wild is not the loss of "adventure" but the loss of a profound sense that there is something not of our making. Ironically, in this world called "Anthropocene" the wild or wilderness returned *inside* our human societies, via old mythologies of decay, judgement day, the end of the world, and by paranoia and despair. (The latter is a major insight of Michael Ventura and James Hillman). Thus, your "despair" in "Hospicing Modernity" (a wonderful term, by the way) is in itself not a feeling that something is missing but the sensation that something quiet uncomfortable is present: chaos (that is: the sphere beyond the oikos), the wild. (And in that way, the often cited "crisis of modernity" is a pretty healthy thing.) What people need to leran, though, is to understand the difference between taking something literally and taking something seriously. Eschewing literalism helps rebirthing joy and playfulness, and to restore the sense of wonder that we lost in our hours in front of the screen.
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 09:09:33 JST
Much of culture and human understanding of himself circles around or stems from an underlying understanding of wilderness as the "untamed" other. What people so awfully call "Anthropocene" is less that there are "no untouched areas" left but that the world apprently completely turned into a man-made or man-influenced "oikos". The absence of the wild makes itself felt by the sense of staleness this world of ours has acquired -- and why, then, should one care for such a boring and stale world? Thus what resulted from the vanishing of the wild is not the loss of "adventure" but the loss of a profound sense that there is something not of our making. Ironically, in this world called "Anthropocene" the wild or wilderness returned inside our human societies, via old mythologies of decay, judgement day, the end of the world, and by paranoia and despair. (The latter is a major insight of Michael Ventura and James Hillman). Thus, your "despair" in "Hospicing Modernity" (a wonderful term, by the way) is in itself not a feeling that something is missing but the sensation that something quiet uncomfortable is present: chaos (that is: the sphere beyond the oikos), the wild. (And in that way, the often cited "crisis of modernity" is a pretty healthy thing.) What people need to leran, though, is to understand the difference between taking something literally and taking something seriously. Eschewing literalism helps rebirthing joy and playfulness, and to restore the sense of wonder that we lost in our hours in front of the screen.
simsa03: What does #AI need to accomplish in order for it to "understand" that its counterpart is a sentient being (and not a chatbot)? And would that make much of a difference? In its the eyes, we humans must seem like cheap, simplistically performing sentient chatbots given the little prompst it needs to evoke reactions from us that look like rationality and consciousness.
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 24-Mar-2026 08:46:10 JST
What does #AI need to accomplish in order for it to "understand" that its counterpart is a sentient being (and not a chatbot)? And would that make much of a difference? In its the eyes, we humans must seem like cheap, simplistically performing sentient chatbots given the little prompst it needs to evoke reactions from us that look like rationality and consciousness.
simsa03: What I don't understand about the rush to SMR nuclear reactors: Why not adopt already existing naval nuclear reactors and their designs? Is it that they use up to 90% enriched fission material whereas civilian reactors only use 5% to 20%? So, although naval reactors use weapons-grade nuclear material, they come with the advantage that they can be shut down and powered up in seconds which could make them appropriate to balance the volatility of renewables in the grid. #nuclear #renewables #peakrenewables #energy #infrastructure
simsa03's status on Monday, 23-Mar-2026 04:14:07 JST
What I don't understand about the rush to SMR nuclear reactors: Why not adopt already existing naval nuclear reactors and their designs? Is it that they use up to 90% enriched fission material whereas civilian reactors only use 5% to 20%? So, although naval reactors use weapons-grade nuclear material, they come with the advantage that they can be shut down and powered up in seconds which could make them appropriate to balance the volatility of renewables in the grid. nuclear #renewables #peakrenewables #energy #infrastructure
ketquabongdadeal2: ketquabongdadeal2 (https://gnusocial.jp/ketquabongdadeal2) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
ketquabongdadeal2's status on Sunday, 22-Mar-2026 21:57:28 JST
ketquabongdadeal2 started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
gamebaiworkk: gamebaiworkk (https://gnusocial.jp/gamebaiworkk) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
gamebaiworkk's status on Sunday, 22-Mar-2026 16:22:49 JST
gamebaiworkk started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
iwinclubjpnet2: iwinclubjpnet2 (https://gnusocial.jp/iwinclubjpnet2) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
iwinclubjpnet2's status on Sunday, 22-Mar-2026 10:35:45 JST
iwinclubjpnet2 started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
f8bettgames1: F8bet Tgames (https://gnusocial.jp/f8bettgames1) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
f8bettgames1's status on Sunday, 22-Mar-2026 10:28:12 JST
F8bet Tgames started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
f8bettttcom: f8bettttcom (https://gnusocial.jp/f8bettttcom) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
f8bettttcom's status on Saturday, 21-Mar-2026 21:23:45 JST
f8bettttcom started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
sunwinnzacom: Sunwin Zacom (https://gnusocial.jp/sunwinnzacom) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
sunwinnzacom's status on Saturday, 21-Mar-2026 16:52:46 JST
Sunwin Zacom started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
ericlykubet9x: Eric Ly (https://gnusocial.jp/ericlykubet9x) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
ericlykubet9x's status on Friday, 20-Mar-2026 18:52:52 JST
Eric Ly started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
go881jpnett: go881jpnett (https://gnusocial.jp/go881jpnett) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
go881jpnett's status on Friday, 20-Mar-2026 14:13:15 JST
go881jpnett started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
simsa03: There is a problem with the talk of "opening" the Strait of Hormuz for oil tankers, esp. when the talk is about protecting them via convoying them by, say, western military vessels. When the Strait of Hormuz gets opened, one half of the oil goes to the east (China etc.), the other to the west, to the Bab-el-Mandeb, the bottleneck to the Red Sea that leads to the Suez Canal. Here the Houthis of Yemen can (and will) attack and close it. That means: Convoying ships through the Strait of Hormuz requires a replication of the effort for the Bab-el-Mandeb. To "secure trade routes", one needs to bring to the heel not one but two states, Iran and Yemen. Are western powers willing to do that? Are they prepared to do that? Obviously one can agree to do that, and one can find the moment most convenient as Russia is bleeding out in its war in Ukraine while Europeans help Ukraine in its fight. Still, has there been enough planning for *two* war theatres, Iran and Yemen? I have my doubts. The U.S. and Israel should have consulted with Europeans far earlier. And not just for the legalese and snobbish sensitivities. But for simple planning.
simsa03's status on Friday, 20-Mar-2026 11:54:39 JST
There is a problem with the talk of "opening" the Strait of Hormuz for oil tankers, esp. when the talk is about protecting them via convoying them by, say, western military vessels. When the Strait of Hormuz gets opened, one half of the oil goes to the east (China etc.), the other to the west, to the Bab-el-Mandeb, the bottleneck to the Red Sea that leads to the Suez Canal. Here the Houthis of Yemen can (and will) attack and close it. That means: Convoying ships through the Strait of Hormuz requires a replication of the effort for the Bab-el-Mandeb. To "secure trade routes", one needs to bring to the heel not one but two states, Iran and Yemen. Are western powers willing to do that? Are they prepared to do that? Obviously one can agree to do that, and one can find the moment most convenient as Russia is bleeding out in its war in Ukraine while Europeans help Ukraine in its fight. Still, has there been enough planning for two war theatres, Iran and Yemen? I have my doubts. The U.S. and Israel should have consulted with Europeans far earlier. And not just for the legalese and snobbish sensitivities. But for simple planning.
rikvippjpnet: rikvippjpnet (https://gnusocial.jp/rikvippjpnet) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
rikvippjpnet's status on Friday, 20-Mar-2026 10:48:22 JST
rikvippjpnet started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
simsa03: RT @simsa02 Drüben auf X wird gerade sehr schön die antisemitische @dielinke auseinandergenommen. Lovely!
simsa03's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 13:34:11 JST
RT @simsa02 Drüben auf X wird gerade sehr schön die antisemitische @dielinke auseinandergenommen. Lovely!
simsa03: What seems to fly a bit under the radar in thinking about the current U.S.-Iran war is that Iran's attacks on the Gulf states and the inability of the U.S. to stop them may lead to the dissolution of the petrodollar system. To sketch some outlines: The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, is an arrangement in which states of today's Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), agreed to price oil in U.S. dollars and invest in U.S. Treasury securities in exchange for military protection and advanced weaponry sales by the U.S. The Gulf Cooperation Council, established in 1981, is an intergovernmental political and economical union as well as an military alliance that today comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE. And this arrangement seems now apparently broken, as Iran attacks all GCC members and the U.S. is incapable of protecting them from these attacks. So what Iran really does is not (or not primarily) threaten the oil transport in the Strait of Hormuz but the viability of the petrodollar system. And so, Iran's attacks, in my understanding, has never been an act of "desperation", a hapless attempt to try to "convince" the Gulf states to pressure the U.S. to cease the attacks. The Iranian regime is not interested in "getting away". Rather, by directly attacking the Gulf states, Iran chose a far more serious and dangerous attack on the U.S., its credit score, and the dominance of the U.S. dollar as payment method in all oil purchases. And the reason why this is a serious threat to the U.S. is simple: Because if the U.S. cannot protect the Gulf states militarily, then why should the members of the GCC keep adhering to the petrodollar system? That would mean that after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, the successor system to anchor the U.S. dollar as indispensable currency is in danger of failing. It seems to be for that reason why Iran apparently hasn't yet laid mines in the Strait of Hormuz. For one, Iran wants to keep oil transports to its favourite allies going (thus it cannot mine the Strait), and second, the quantity of oil that goes through the Strait of Hormuz is not the real issue; the issue is the breakup of the petrodollar system. And this all the more as it apparently can be achieved with unsophisticated military means (drones) that can be operated independently from a functioning chain of military command in the Iranian regime, by dispersed and isolated ("decentralized") military units. The astounding thing is not just that the Trump administration bet so high on a quick end of the campaign and the collapse of the Iranian regime before it could (or would) mine the Strait of Hormuz. The flabbergasting thing is that apparently no-one in the weirdo Trump administration nor anyone in the media (as far as I've hitherto seen) thought about the far more crucial impact of such an Iranian response. That doesn't necessarily mean that the petrodollar system will be gone after ths war. But it pretty likely means that after the war the Gulf states will have far greater leverage vis-à-vis the U.S. when it comes to extracting concessions for their continued willingness to stick to the petrodollar system. Again: The issue is not the *quantity* of oil that is on the market—with or without the deliveries through the Strait of Hormuz. It is that Trump in his infinite mental derangement just risked the viability of the whole U.S. economy. If the petrodollar system breaks down, then so does the priority of the U.S. dollar in world economic affairs. Because then there is no other system left by which to anchor the U.S. financial dominance. And that means that U.S. treasury securities are no longer lucrative investments for foreign investors. I have no idea what this means for international trade, international finance, and monetary ssystems. I'm not an economist. But to me this seems to be a far more plausible explanation why Iran is really attacking the Gulf states and what this strategy may mean. Please tell me I'm an idiot. Pretty please.
simsa03's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 12:54:57 JST
What seems to fly a bit under the radar in thinking about the current U.S.-Iran war is that Iran's attacks on the Gulf states and the inability of the U.S. to stop them may lead to the dissolution of the petrodollar system. To sketch some outlines: The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, is an arrangement in which states of today's Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), agreed to price oil in U.S. dollars and invest in U.S. Treasury securities in exchange for military protection and advanced weaponry sales by the U.S. The Gulf Cooperation Council, established in 1981, is an intergovernmental political and economical union as well as an military alliance that today comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE. And this arrangement seems now apparently broken, as Iran attacks all GCC members and the U.S. is incapable of protecting them from these attacks. So what Iran really does is not (or not primarily) threaten the oil transport in the Strait of Hormuz but the viability of the petrodollar system. And so, Iran's attacks, in my understanding, has never been an act of "desperation", a hapless attempt to try to "convince" the Gulf states to pressure the U.S. to cease the attacks. The Iranian regime is not interested in "getting away". Rather, by directly attacking the Gulf states, Iran chose a far more serious and dangerous attack on the U.S., its credit score, and the dominance of the U.S. dollar as payment method in all oil purchases. And the reason why this is a serious threat to the U.S. is simple: Because if the U.S. cannot protect the Gulf states militarily, then why should the members of the GCC keep adhering to the petrodollar system? That would mean that after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, the successor system to anchor the U.S. dollar as indispensable currency is in danger of failing. It seems to be for that reason why Iran apparently hasn't yet laid mines in the Strait of Hormuz. For one, Iran wants to keep oil transports to its favourite allies going (thus it cannot mine the Strait), and second, the quantity of oil that goes through the Strait of Hormuz is not the real issue; the issue is the breakup of the petrodollar system. And this all the more as it apparently can be achieved with unsophisticated military means (drones) that can be operated independently from a functioning chain of military command in the Iranian regime, by dispersed and isolated ("decentralized") military units. The astounding thing is not just that the Trump administration bet so high on a quick end of the campaign and the collapse of the Iranian regime before it could (or would) mine the Strait of Hormuz. The flabbergasting thing is that apparently no-one in the weirdo Trump administration nor anyone in the media (as far as I've hitherto seen) thought about the far more crucial impact of such an Iranian response. That doesn't necessarily mean that the petrodollar system will be gone after ths war. But it pretty likely means that after the war the Gulf states will have far greater leverage vis-à-vis the U.S. when it comes to extracting concessions for their continued willingness to stick to the petrodollar system. Again: The issue is not the quantity of oil that is on the market—with or without the deliveries through the Strait of Hormuz. It is that Trump in his infinite mental derangement just risked the viability of the whole U.S. economy. If the petrodollar system breaks down, then so does the priority of the U.S. dollar in world economic affairs. Because then there is no other system left by which to anchor the U.S. financial dominance. And that means that U.S. treasury securities are no longer lucrative investments for foreign investors. I have no idea what this means for international trade, international finance, and monetary ssystems. I'm not an economist. But to me this seems to be a far more plausible explanation why Iran is really attacking the Gulf states and what this strategy may mean. Please tell me I'm an idiot. Pretty please.
simsa03: I remember how approx. 40 years ago my grandfather, himself an engineer, told me that, jobwise, I really should go into computers and "coding". "That's the future," he told me. Now, with #AI starting to lay off all the coders, I'm baffled how quick such an advice, reasonable at the time, has already become outdated to the point of irrelevance. And I'm glad I didn't heed it back then but went to university and began studies in philosophy, art history, linguistics, literature. Obviously I crashed any future employability, and it shows in my life, but man am I happy not to have become an engineer or something like that.
simsa03's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 08:12:48 JST
I remember how approx. 40 years ago my grandfather, himself an engineer, told me that, jobwise, I really should go into computers and "coding". "That's the future," he told me. Now, with #AI starting to lay off all the coders, I'm baffled how quick such an advice, reasonable at the time, has already become outdated to the point of irrelevance. And I'm glad I didn't heed it back then but went to university and began studies in philosophy, art history, linguistics, literature. Obviously I crashed any future employability, and it shows in my life, but man am I happy not to have become an engineer or something like that.
simsa03: Marc Airhart, "A Break in a Longstanding Mystery about Origin of Complex Life" (Feb 17, 2026) https://cns.utexas.edu/news/research/break-longstanding-mystery-about-origin-complex-life «The most widely accepted scientific explanation for the arrival of all complex life on Earth has had an unsolved mystery at its heart. According to the theory, all plants, animals and fungi, known collectively as eukaryotes, are thought to have evolved after two very different types of microbes came together. The problem was in figuring out how the two were in such close proximity in the first place, given that one of the microbes requires oxygen for survival and the other was known to live in spaces without oxygen.»
simsa03's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 06:20:18 JST
Marc Airhart, "A Break in a Longstanding Mystery about Origin of Complex Life" (Feb 17, 2026) https://cns.utexas.edu/news/research/break-longstanding-mystery-about-origin-complex-life «The most widely accepted scientific explanation for the arrival of all complex life on Earth has had an unsolved mystery at its heart. According to the theory, all plants, animals and fungi, known collectively as eukaryotes, are thought to have evolved after two very different types of microbes came together. The problem was in figuring out how the two were in such close proximity in the first place, given that one of the microbes requires oxygen for survival and the other was known to live in spaces without oxygen.»
A Break in a Longstanding Mystery about Origin of Complex Life
simsa03: Only now did I notice: "The Israel National Archaeological Database" https://discover.iaa.org.il/ #sources #archeology #archaeology https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/45cf0b6eb0c6564aba0875cc14ff5f2142759dffa99c06d998bbe5a9b284025f/view
simsa03's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 06:04:48 JST
Only now did I notice: "The Israel National Archaeological Database" https://discover.iaa.org.il/ sources #archeology #archaeology https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/45cf0b6eb0c6564aba0875cc14ff5f2142759dffa99c06d998bbe5a9b284025f/view
tt88hunet1: tt88 (https://gnusocial.jp/tt88hunet1) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
tt88hunet1's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 03:03:48 JST
tt88 started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
789clubaqnet: 789clubaqnet (https://gnusocial.jp/789clubaqnet) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
789clubaqnet's status on Thursday, 19-Mar-2026 01:13:06 JST
789clubaqnet started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
c168sshop: c168sshop (https://gnusocial.jp/c168sshop) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
c168sshop's status on Wednesday, 18-Mar-2026 13:45:24 JST
c168sshop started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
c168gamecomm: c168gamecomm (https://gnusocial.jp/c168gamecomm) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
c168gamecomm's status on Wednesday, 18-Mar-2026 11:52:20 JST
c168gamecomm started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
fun88team: fun88team (https://gnusocial.jp/fun88team) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
fun88team's status on Wednesday, 18-Mar-2026 07:10:49 JST
fun88team started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
uu88iocom9: uu88iocom (https://gnusocial.jp/uu88iocom9) started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人) (https://gnusocial.jp/gnusocialjp).
uu88iocom9's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 17:30:33 JST
uu88iocom started following ぐぬ管 (GNU social JP管理人).
simsa03: (To be clear: I do think that the AfD is a far-right party and that the Left Party is an anti-Semitic party. Not just because of the number of party members and voters holding such convictions but because of these stances being tolerated by the respective party leaderships.)
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 13:06:44 JST
(To be clear: I do think that the AfD is a far-right party and that the Left Party is an anti-Semitic party. Not just because of the number of party members and voters holding such convictions but because of these stances being tolerated by the respective party leaderships.)
simsa03: The AfD is far-right – a single state branch is enough to prove that. Similarly, the Left Party is anti-Semitic – again, a single state branch is enough to prove that. Now, leftists can gladly reject a pars pro toto as a fallacy, but then they won't be able to call the AfD far-right or fascist.
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 11:28:28 JST
The AfD is far-right – a single state branch is enough to prove that. Similarly, the Left Party is anti-Semitic – again, a single state branch is enough to prove that. Now, leftists can gladly reject a pars pro toto as a fallacy, but then they won't be able to call the AfD far-right or fascist.
simsa03: Die AfD ist rechtsextrem – dafür reicht schon ein Landesverband. Entsprechend ist die Links-Partei antisemitisch – auch dafür reicht schon ein Landesverband. Nun können Linke pars pro toto als Fehlschluss gerne ablehnen, nur fliegt ihnen dann der Faschismus der Rechten um die Ohren.
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 11:17:32 JST
Die AfD ist rechtsextrem – dafür reicht schon ein Landesverband. Entsprechend ist die Links-Partei antisemitisch – auch dafür reicht schon ein Landesverband. Nun können Linke pars pro toto als Fehlschluss gerne ablehnen, nur fliegt ihnen dann der Faschismus der Rechten um die Ohren.
simsa03: Wieviele shitbulls wieder durch die Straßen streifen und ihre Reviere markieren...
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 10:37:31 JST
Wieviele shitbulls wieder durch die Straßen streifen und ihre Reviere markieren...
gnu2: Paywall-free https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1YCQcV
gnu2's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 07:42:26 JST
Paywall-free https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1YCQcV
gnu2: @ATLeagle@mastodon.online @steter@mastodon.stevesworld.co are you sure it's not you all distracting from mass murder?
gnu2's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 07:33:30 JST
@ATLeagle @steter are you sure it's not you all distracting from mass murder?
gnu2's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 07:32:18 JST
@w0rm lol
simsa03: There were good reasons why the Obama Administrtation opted for the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" in 2015 ("Iran Nuclear Deal") instead of military action. They got UN inspections of the nuclear sites (more or less) and didn't need to keep the Strait of Hormuz open by force. Put differently: It was precisely because of that leverage that Iran could establish and secure its dictatorship for more than 40 years – there simply were no ways to oust the regime. Ot at least not without a heavy price. Which we're going to pay now with this U.S. adventure. (I exempt Israel from this allegation of adventurism because Israel has far more vital reasons for its attacks. Still I think it is dangerously overstreching its forces and harming its economy.)
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 05:09:56 JST
There were good reasons why the Obama Administrtation opted for the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" in 2015 ("Iran Nuclear Deal") instead of military action. They got UN inspections of the nuclear sites (more or less) and didn't need to keep the Strait of Hormuz open by force. Put differently: It was precisely because of that leverage that Iran could establish and secure its dictatorship for more than 40 years – there simply were no ways to oust the regime. Ot at least not without a heavy price. Which we're going to pay now with this U.S. adventure. (I exempt Israel from this allegation of adventurism because Israel has far more vital reasons for its attacks. Still I think it is dangerously overstreching its forces and harming its economy.)
simsa03: The awful result is that now a ground invasion into Iran and regime change looks inevitable. Leave the theatre and achieve (at most) "regime modification" still leads to an Iran adamant to build nuclear weapons. And it can do so even when mostly destroyed, with the Strait of Hormuz as hostage.
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 04:56:56 JST
The awful result is that now a ground invasion into Iran and regime change looks inevitable. Leave the theatre and achieve (at most) "regime modification" still leads to an Iran adamant to build nuclear weapons. And it can do so even when mostly destroyed, with the Strait of Hormuz as hostage.
simsa03: But as John Bolton in a recent interview said: The Europeans play it wrong. They should make support to the U.S. dependent on the willingness of the U.S. to keep supporting Ukraine. But that won't happen, even though the NATO restrictions are not the issue here.
simsa03's status on Tuesday, 17-Mar-2026 04:13:45 JST
But as John Bolton in a recent interview said: The Europeans play it wrong. They should make support to the U.S. dependent on the willingness of the U.S. to keep supporting Ukraine. But that won't happen, even though the NATO restrictions are not the issue here.