It's well-accepted that Stalin's various purges and famines killed several times more civilians than Hitler managed to, for instance.
Here in the US, I'm personally more concerned about a replay of Pol Pot's regime. He took Hitler's warped notions of anti-intellectualism ("Jewish physics") to a whole new level ("Kill anybody wearing glasses.")
The fact that he did so under the standard of leftism doesn't really seem that meaningful or relevant, because if/when it happens here, it will evidently be perpetrated by the extreme right. A pox on both their houses.
Consider the space of possible paths towards peace in UA that the current administration can choose from. Do you believe the paths with the highest likelihood of success for reaching a mutual peace agreement involve making one of the sides unhappy, uncomfortable, angry, or by publicly berating them?
It is true that he doesn’t care if people are unhappy or uncomfortable, it’s true he doesn’t care about optics, it is true that he has a set of things he wants to get done, and it’s true the first two points influence his approach to achieving the latter. However the question - the only question that matters - still remains: is this approach the most effective course of action to choose? Maybe it’s not reasonable to assert with complete confidence that it isn’t, but it is certainly unreasonable to assert that it is.
Out of curiosity, what are the other similar public meetings/negotiations you’re aware of that were conducted in a similar way?
Or generally, since you say this did not deviate from your expectations, what are the past events that influenced your baseline expectation for conduct on the geopolitical stage?
Civility is overrated. Maybe you felt like tired rhetoric from prior admin about Israel or Putin was more effective but I sure don't. People are awfully afraid to rock the boat in American political discourse. It's probably been too polite as a cover for a lot of ugly policy on both the left and right.
Perhaps, and the externalities often unaccounted for or hand-waved away.
Even the US Government is getting involved in subsidizing these companies and all of the infrastructure and resources needed to keep it expanding. We can look forward to even more methane power plants, more drilling, more fracking, more noisy data-centres sucking up fresh water from local reserves and increased damage to the environment that will come out of the pocket books of... ?
Update: And for what? "Deep Research"? Apparently it's not that great or world-changing for the costs involved. It seems that the author is tired of the yearly promise that everything is just a year or two away as long as we keep shovelling more money and resources into the furnace.
What is the current state of DSPy optimizers? When I originally checked it out it appeared to just be optimizing the set of examples used for n-shot prompting.
It hinges on what the word “that” in “release that” is referring to. If it’s referring to releasing his name, then he’s implying not releasing his name is a choice which implies they have the option to release it, so they must know it. If it’s referring to releasing whether or not they know his name, then it’s not implying anything. If this was said by someone with a history of well-spoken and thoughtful public statements, then it’d most likely be the latter interpretation. Given it’s Eric Adams, either is plausible. In fact, the bullshit-ness of the former may make it even more probable here.
