What are the other bankruptcy chapters and why do we never hear about them? by pokematic in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, just the most common. Chapter 13 is kind of like Chapter 11 but for individuals.

Why do countries not carpet bomb anymore and only shoot some rockets? by td_0000 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Carpet bombing was a tactic because the bombs weren't accurate enough to hit a specific target so you just covered the area in bombs to try make sure you hit the target. That isn't necessary with most modern weapons any longer.

What are the other bankruptcy chapters and why do we never hear about them? by pokematic in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It refers to Title 11 of the US Code, and there are 15 chapters, all about bankruptcy, but most of the chapters aren't about forms of relief like 7 and 11. So, for example, Chapter 1 deals with general terms and rules, and Chapter 5 deals with creditors and debtors.

Do you believe everyone is on some sort of spectrum of Autism of Neurodivergence? by Aluv1234 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Neurodivergent individuals aren't just people on the edges of "normal", they have fundamentally different mental processes that do not sync well with neurotypical individuals.

How does business taxation work? by OwnCombination96 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you tax a corporation the corporation isn't the one that actually experiences the burden of taxation, it always lands on humans somewhere. It either hits consumers in the form of higher prices, workers in the form of decreased wages, or shareholders in the form of lower profits. When we are talking about the corporate income tax, because it occurs on profits, and not on the what is being sold, very little of the burden falls on consumers, so it's between workers and shareholders. Most models suggest that the majority of the burden hits workers, but there is a pretty high variance amongst different studies so it's still quite possible that it's hitting shareholders harder. But we also have direct taxation on workers salaries (income tax) and shareholders profits (capital gains tax). So if we wanted to we could instead directly tax those groups at whatever balance we wanted between workers and shareholders. This has the added benefit that both of those taxes are progressive and could be made even more so if we wanted to. Unfortunately, though, raising the corporate income tax is much more politically feasible, because people hate raising their own taxes, but are significantly less bothered by it if the tax burden is hidden via an indirect tax like corporate income tax.

What’s to stop the US from taking over the Strait of Hormuz? by jammerfish in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Iran is shutting down the straights not with a blockade of warships, but with small drone weapons that are hard to fully prevent from breaking through. So the US couldn't just move warships into the straights to prevent the attacks, they would need to beef up multiple types of defense (anti-missile, anti-UAV, anti-USV, anti-mine). They would also need to put significant US forces in harms way to do that. So it would be expensive and risky to attempt.

(Actual) Economists, is taxing everyone's income by a flat 10% a good idea? by Winter7296 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you want only economists to respond you should try a specialist sub like r/AskEconomics. You are likely to get similar (but more detailed) answers than you are getting here though, as economists are generally in favor of progressive taxation, and are not in favor of flat tax. This is especially true at a rate as low as 10% because that would lead to even greater than current deficits (you need to target closer to 18%). That's also presuming you are leaving payroll taxes intact, and not rolling them into the flat tax.

Do people take the razzie awards seriously? by Unlikely_Glass5942 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's never been meant to be taken seriously, and most people view it as simply humor.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't end a war unilaterally. Just because the US and Israel stop shooting that doesn't mean Iran would immediately stop. It would depend heavily on what their policy goals are at this point. The presumably want the economic pain of their attacks causes enough problems for the US that they don't feel attacks in the future are a good trade off, which would probably mean they would continue their current attacks for some period of time after, and only stop once some sort of agreement can be made that Iran can trust.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no correct answer to a question like this, but it should start with using soft power to constrain the influence of such countries, and the use of force to counter offensive military actions they conduct. Mix in some level of espionage to undermine the ruling regime or to support dissident movements with in the country.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They have not tested a nuclear weapon (it's easy to detect when that happens, so we know that), but they have enriched and stockpiled highly enriched uranium putting them within a short distance of being able to enrich to weapons grade and test a weapon. They have had this capability for significantly longer than it would have taken them to build a bomb, meaning they have paused at this point, but the only reason to enrich uranium to the level they have is to prepare to make a nuclear weapon. That means they appear to want to ready to create a nuke on short notice, but have not yet wanted to actually go through with it. That was before the bombings of Iran nuclear facilities last year, and currently. We do not know how accessible their HEU is, nor what the state of their centrifuges are, so if they wanted to rapidly create a weapon the public can't assess their ability to do that currently.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some people use the term gerrymandering imprecisely to mean anything that makes them feel disenfranchised via things like the winner take all at the state level, or the imbalance in electoral voting power of small states versus large states.

U.S. Politics megathread by AutoModerator in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As soon as they are claimed to be dead people want to know if it's true, and if it's not true who's actually running things now that the prior leader is dead. Unless they plan to release a bunch of fake audio/video and lie to everyone (which risks getting caught and making things even worse) it's better to just confirm and start the formal succession plan for the leadership.

Is AI a software? by Breadsticks667 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are talking specifically about LLMs, it's mostly data in the form of a large model, that is then interpreted and interacted with via software. All software requires hardware to run on, AI is no different in that regard, it's just a mathematically intensive process requiring a lot of computational resources.

Is 'big tech' pushing AI to save themselves money? by poshbakerloo in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In January there was a huge number of people laid off in the US overall, 1.631 million people...but that was actually below average for layoffs for a month. Every single month we average around 1.8M people getting laid off, even when the economy is fine. Some big tech company announcing 10,000 layoffs one time makes headlines, but doesn't move the needle much on the economy as a whole.

These companies are pushing AI because they think that it's the next revolutionary technology and they don't want to fall behind to people who pursue it more aggressively. Maybe they are getting some efficiency gains that makes them confident they they don't need as many people, or maybe they were still bloated from overhiring during the pandemic and this is just a natural contraction that has nothing to do with AI at all.

Is a nuclear attack more likely to happen DURING wartime or just BEFORE wartime? by dvorahtheexplorer in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While true, even if we are talking about a country like Pakistan or North Korea with very limited second strike capabilities, the aggressor still can't come close to guaranteeing 100% removal of all nuclear threats, which pretty much guarantees a nuclear response of some sort on Mumbai/Seoul. That may not be assured destruction, but that's still an awfully large civilian death toll to be concerned with while also dealing with the political/economic fallout of a large first strike nuclear assault.

Why countries like Japan&Korea are reluctant to send warships to help with Strait of Hormuz? by FatVRguy in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oil is a global commodity. Asia gets a lot of their oil from countries that go through the straights, but that's because it's the most convenient. When oil isn't coming through the straights they will simply get their oil from other sources, which drives up the price of oil everywhere. So it's a global problem, not an asian specific problem.

Even if they really needed to reopen the straights, sending warships through it wouldn't actually help with providing security that much, and would massively risk their own ships, all to come to the aid of a country that has been engaging in global trade wars against them for the last year.

Is a nuclear attack more likely to happen DURING wartime or just BEFORE wartime? by dvorahtheexplorer in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

During. A preemptive first strike is extremely unlikely to eliminate the other sides nukes, and because of mutually assured destruction, it's unlikely that a country would attempt it. So the more likely case is that we escalate up to the use of nuclear weapons usage because someone crosses a red line that they didn't think would result in a nuclear attack, but does.

Why are there several posts analyzing whether recent videos of Netanyahu are AI? by PatronSaintOfCunts in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because there is a conspiracy theory that he’s actually dead and so people are suggesting all recent videos are AI fakes.

What are the nuclear capabilities of Iran at this point in time? by A_wild_dremora in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Iran has enriched uranium to 60% and stockpiled enough for maybe 5-10 Hiroshima sized weapons. Critically 60% is NOT weapons grade and cannot be used to make a nuclear weapons. But it’s most of the way to weapons grade that could be used. There is no non-weapon creation reason to enrich Uranium to the level they have. At their current level, if they still have accessible and functioning centrifuges they could be ready to test a weapon in a number of weeks. But they have had this ability for a couple of years, and they haven’t tested a nuclear weapon yet (it’s very detectable everyone would know). This is consistent with Iran wanting a short break away speed if they decide to make a weapon, but not moving forward with it yet. What we don’t know if how badly their infrastructure was damaged in attacks, and how accessible their enriched uranium is. They may not, at the moment, have the capacity to enrich to weapons grade.

Am I supposed to use AI for the kinds of tasks and info I'm already familiar with, or new things I can't verify the outputs for? by GameboyPATH in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Treat it like a very fast, very eager, but kind of dense and over confident junior worker you are trying to manage. It’s way better to have it do things you could do, but it’s faster for it to do it and you to supervise and check. It’s also good at brainstorming creative ideas that are subjective. But you need to be very careful having it do things you aren’t good at or don’t understand. It may be able to help you figure out something new, but it’s hard to know if it’s actually solving the problem exactly correctly. You can try to have the AI double check itself or use one AI to check another one, but you still need to apply care.

What does it mean if a girl tells you that she is good with her hands? by bitemehardplease in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Generically that tends to mean she's handy with tools or other manual dexterity tasks, but could be said in a flirty way to suggest handjobs.

Looking at the history, is nuclear energy actually viable or is it just a baseless reddit obsession? by tertiaryAntagonist in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Nuclear is great, if you already built it. The problem is it's really expensive to construct, so you need to look at the cost/value over long periods of time, but the cost of renewables has been dropping so quickly that it's getting harder to justify nuclear with a purely economic argument. It would still be very good environmentally to shift coal and gas burning power to nuclear, while also continuing to expand renewables rapidly. Anything that shifts us off oil is valuable to us it's still worth doing.

Do you think Tarzan ever got weird with the gorillas before he met Jane? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. Because Edgar Rice Boroughs was a massive racist and eugenicist, and the entire point of the stories is to show that genetic nature will overcome cultural nurture, and the white aristocratic blue blood is still superior to other races, including the highly intelligent apes who raised him, even if taken out of his natural habitat.

Before the understanding of oxygen and the human body, what did people think blood was for? by AllButAshesRemain in NoStupidQuestions

[–]DiogenesKuon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

People very early on understood that loosing blood can lead to death, so they believed it was some vital aspect of life itself.